Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF GLASGOW DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill, under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 to confirm a Provisional Order relating to City of Glasgow District Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 7 December and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Surpluses

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made in eliminating agricultural surpluses within the European Community.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): European Community intervention stocks of most commodities have fallen significantly as a result of recent common agricultural policy reforms. For example, butter stocks have been reduced by 80 per cent. over the past year and stocks of skimmed milk powder are now almost negligible.

Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the United Kingdom butter mountain is melting and that skimmed milk powder surpluses have almost vanished proves that CAP reforms are beginning to work and that it is possible to reform the CAP in such a way as to provide a firm basis for the future prosperity of our farmers?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. A main criticism of the CAP in recent years has been the amount of money that has gone into the storage and disposal of surplus stocks. The fact that those surplus stocks are decreasing substantially is a good sign for the future stability of our farmers. We must do other things to achieve complete CAP reform, but we should acknowledge how much has been done already.

Mr. Tony Banks: I understand that we have a large and growing cheese mountain as a result of EC surpluses. Of course, we expect to get nothing but hard cheese from the Government—[Interruption.] It will do for 2.36 pm. As I assume that some of that cheese will be in intervention

stores in my constituency—there is probably some good Greek feta cheese knocking about—is there any chance of the pensioners of Newham eating some of that feta cheese, with a pint or two of ouzo, at Christmas?

Mr. MacGregor: That was a rather belaboured remark. It is important to get the matter in context. The increase in cheese stocks is small, as is the total stock. The major expense lay in the butter mountain stocks, and they have been decreasing. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we took advantage of the EC free food scheme in relation to butter, but the decrease in butter stocks means that we shall have much less, or nothing, to do on that front in the future. That is not the best way to deal with the surplus. The best way is not to have a surplus in the first place.

Mr. Marland: As the agricultural surpluses are coming under control, will my right hon. Friend consider easing the co-responsibility levies on dairy products and cereals? They have always been iniquitous taxes and have had no effect on surpluses. Will he use his best offices to reduce that tax?

Mr. MacGregor: It is right to emphasise the fact that surpluses are decreasing and the mountains vanishing. The public at large and many pundits have not yet got hold of that fact. But we must still undertake further reforms, not least in the subsidised disposal of dairy products that are not in intervention stores. With other factors, that means that the dairy sector is still an expensive regime.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the co-responsibility levies on milk and cereals are the wrong way to tackle the problem, and I shall continue to battle to get rid of them. But the regimes are still expensive, and until we get them more under control I may be unable to persuade all my fellow Council Ministers to accept my view.

Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that it has cost the European taxpayer £4·5 billion to remove the post-1987 food mountain and thus reduce the amount in storage? Will he assure the House that, to stop those mountains being rebuilt, not even one quarter of that amount has been spent in 1988?

Mr. MacGregor: It is rather complicated to give exact figures on what it costs to get rid of surplus products, as costs are spread over several years. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about that. He is right to say that the figure has been high for storage and disposal of stocks. Last year, the actual figure for the Community was £12·5 billion. It is important that we ensure that stocks do not increase again and that we do not face such costs. That is what the thrust of the policies is about.

3

Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that cereal farmers have taken an almighty beating in the cereal price that they received as part of the effort to reform the CAP and reduce surpluses? There has been a 42 per cent. reduction in their prices in the past 10 years. Would he say to cereal farmers in his and my constituencies that he understands their problems and that he will do everything that he can to ensure that they do not lead to widespread deprivation of vast areas of East Anglia?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand entirely the difficulties that many cereal farmers in this country are experiencing as a result of the


adjustment process that we have had to undertake, coupled also with two years of bad weather in East Anglia, which has certainly exacerbated our difficulties.
I do not wish to minimise the matter; I entirely understand the pressures. However, my hon. Friend will agree that there was no stable basis for our cereal farmers as worldwide and Community surpluses went on rising, at ever-increasing cost to the taxpayer. The best guarantee of a prosperous future is to tackle the problem of the surpluses, and taking marginal cereal land out of production helps with that, which is, of course, the purpose of the set-aside scheme.

Hedgerows

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement with regard to the destruction of countryside hedgerows during the last five years.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): There have been hedgerow removals in recent years as a result of changing agricultural circumstances and development such as road schemes and housing. There are no clear details on the extent of those removals.
Countryside hedgerows provide a wide variety of benefits to the environment and agriculture. I am very keen to discourage their removal or deterioration. Their value depends on positive action and sympathetic management to keep them in good condition. My Department provides capital grants at favourable rates for the laying of hedges and planting of new ones, as well as advice to farmers on hedgerow management.

Mr. Hardy: Can the Minister deny that, since the Government blocked my perfectly sensible and responsible Hedgerows Bill five years ago, thousands of miles of hedgerows, much of them established and important, have been destroyed? In view of the Prime Minister's recent pronouncements on the importance and attractiveness of the British hedgerow, may I take it that when I again present the Bill next month the Government will take a different view?

Mr. Ryder: I do not believe that legislation in this sphere would be effective, because it cannot be properly policed. Nevertheless, because I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said on the subject over many years, and because, during the past month, I have twice met representatives of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, to discuss the issue, I would be more than happy to talk to him if we could get together in my office during the next week or two.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I was extremely glad to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about the Government's attitude to hedgerows. He knows the importance of hedgerows for wildlife, ranging from hares to partridges, to small birds and butterflies. I am not convinced that, as it exists at present, the grant system is adequate to persuade people to put in more hedgerows. Particularly in the light of the set-aside proposals, will he review the grant system and see whether something can be done to improve it?

Mr. Ryder: Only last Monday my right hon. Friend the Minister announced a new scheme—the farm and conservation grant scheme which increases hedgerow grants from 30 to 40 per cent. in lowland areas, where losses have been the most severe. I urge as many farmers as possible to take advantage of the scheme.

Marine Mammals

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has recently held discussions with fishermen's organisations regarding the phenomenon of the incidental capture of marine mammals.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): My Department has developed plans to seek the co-operation of fishermen to monitor more closely the extent of incidental capture of marine mammals and will be in touch with fishermen's organisations.

Mr. McAllion: Unlike Scottish Tories, grey seals are an endangered species about which the people of Scotland really care. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he agrees that everything possible should be done to try to control the activities that threaten the remaining seal population off our shores. When he meets representatives of the fishermen's organisations, will he ensure that the representatives of the appropriate scientific groups are also there, and that practical solutions to remove this threat from the seal population around our shores are found?

Mr. Thompson: It would be no good meeting fishermen's group unless both we and they were properly backed, or we would not reach any commonsense arrangement. This problem is greater in the Pacific, where the mammals swim along with the tuna, than it is in the North sea. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I should visit the Pacific to see what is being done there.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What is happening about the checking of other vessels off our shores, and particularly in the taking of catches that are not allowed by law? We have good policing arrangements in force when our fishermen dock into our ports, but what are we doing to ensure that these regulations are properly policed within our territorial waters?

Mr. Thompson: I will stick at this point on marine mammals. The Wildlife Link umbrella group will be as influential in other countries as it is in this, and I am sure that fishermen in other countries see this as great a problem there as it is here, and will be making their own arrangements.

Dr. Godman: Given that cetacea of all kinds are now covered by schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, can the Minister assure the House that he will advise fishermen that they need not fear prosecution if they report any such incidental catches?

Mr. Thompson: As the hon. Gentleman says, all whales and dolphins are given a general protection in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 against being caught. However, a fisherman accidentally taking a protected animal would not be held liable, assuming that he acts in a reasonable


manner. This will be made clear to fishermen so that they can be reassured about reporting information for our monitoring scheme.

Bovine Somatotropin

Mrs. Golding: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has discussed the use of bovine somatotropin for boosting milk production with representatives of the Womens Farming Union; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I am well aware of the views of Womens Farming Union members on this subject, which I discussed with them last week.

Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware of the concern of all women about the use of BST? Is he aware that in America there are many adverse views about the use of it and about the effect that it may have on young children? Will he discuss with all farming unions, before he grants a licence, the adverse effects that it could have on the farming industry?

Mr. MacGregor: I have discussed this subject with all farming unions, and there are varying views within the unions, including within the Womens Farming Union. It is important to reassure women by saying that before the trials were approved safety was carefully assessed by the Veterinary Products Committee, as it has to be under the Medicines Act 1968. That Act lays down the criteria that it has to apply. The committee consists of experts in human and animal health and it advised that there was no risk to consumers arising from the trials. That is an important point, and the same processes would have to be followed if there were an application for a licence. It is also the case that many countries, including the United States, are allowing these trials because they too have been advised that there is no risk to human health. That is an important point to make clear to consumers.

Mr. Latham: In view of the traumas that we have had over milk quotas in the past few years, why are we talking about boosting milk production by artificial means?

Mr. MacGregor: We must be careful to distinguish several factors. Under the Medicines Act, when there is any application for a new scientific development, we have to ensure that it is assessed by the experts on safety, efficacy and quality. Safety is paramount, and that is what we have to be sure about. But one has to be careful about saying that one should inhibit new agricultural development simply because we have a surplus. I am anxious that our industry should remain highly competitive and able to take advantage of all legitimate technological developments. Otherwise, it will become uncompetitive. As to surpluses, we have a milk quota system that guarantees that we shall not have an increase in milk production as a result of the application of BST. The point about not disadvantaging our industry or research effort by banning products that are safe is important.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister prevent the Milk Marketing Board from selling milk for human consumption from the trial cows until the findings are known?

Mr. MacGregor: Under the Medicines Act, I have no powers to stop something if the Veterinary Products Committee guarantees that it is safe, efficacious and of quality. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it would be extremely difficult in practice to do that. We should emphasise the fact that there is no scientific evidence of risk to human health.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not time that the consumer was given the protection of the right to know precisely what is in the pint that he drinks? Is it not time that there was a proper requirement for labelling when such additives, hormones and other products are used to boost milk production?

Mr. MacGregor: It is important that the consumer should know that, according to all our expert advice, there is no risk to human health. In any case, the hormone is already present in the milk produced.
I am keen to ensure that more informative labelling is available to consumers wherever possible. There are practical problems with the Milk Marketing Board with regard to this product, but I am willing to consider all possibilities for improving the information available to consumers.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister recognise, from the questions that have been put to him this afternoon and from motions on the Order Paper, that there is outright opposition, both inside and outside the House, to the proposed introduction of BST? This afternoon the Minister has taken refuge behind the Medicines Act. Does he accept that if the Medicines Act is not an adequate instrument to deal with the threat posed by BST he should review the provisions of that Act? In the interim, will he acknowledge that he has powers to ban BST under the 1968 Act? Will he now give an assurance, before he makes a decision, that he will give full consideration to banning BST, using the powers in the 1968 Act?

Mr. MacGregor: There are a wide variety of views about BST and it is important that they are based on full knowledge. With regards to the animal test certificate under the Medicines Act I have to approve any product if the Veterinary Products Committee assures me that it is safe, efficacious and of quality. As regards issuing a licence for the product, that again would go through that committee and through a European Community committee, so there would be a full process before a decision was made.
There is another important point that I should stress to the House. There is concern about ensuring proper research and development possibilities in this country. If major companies thought that their major investments would be put at risk by changing policy decisions in mid-stream without a good basis for doing so, we would be disadvantaged in this country, because that research and development would go elsewhere. That is another important consideration to be borne in mind.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has for the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy over the next six months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Donald Thompson: All the evidence available so far suggests that the disease is not spreading from animal to animal, but that the cases identified are attributable to a common source. Our knowledge is still developing and any estimate must be tentative. Based on the incidence since the disease was made notifiable, the number of cases likely to be confirmed over the next six months may be about 350 a month.

Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that his Ministry was aware of the widespread belief that "spongy brain" is transmitted from one species to another—from sheep to cattle—and that during that period infected meat was sold for human consumption in the markets because of the lamentable failure of his Ministry to stop it? The Minister should apologise for that. What action will he take to prevent the import of infected meat? There has been no recorded outbreak of the disease outside this country, but that may simply reflect the fact that veterinary practices are not at the same standard as those in Britain.

Mr. Thompson: Far from apologising, I shall say that the response of all concerned with the disease has been exemplary. The Ministry, the farmers and the renderers have acted in concert to attack the disease at its onset. The Ministry has diverted funds to find out exactly where the disease is coming from and has found, as the hon. Gentleman said, that it may have started in sheep and been transmitted through animal feedingstuffs to other animals. Therefore, the rendering industry—renderers make protein for animal feedingstuffs—have withdrawn that protein and we have extended the withdrawal period for another year. The farmers are notifying the disease and have accepted 50 per cent. compensation. The Southwood committee has made recommendations which the Government have implemented immediately.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that the incidence of outbreaks of the disease is particularly high in the south-west? Will he consider carefully the existing level of compensation for affected animals? There is, after all, a precedent in the brucellosis eradication scheme, in which the figure was higher than 50 per cent. for infected animals.

Mr. Thompson: I omitted to mention imports in my answer to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). He said that there are no notifications of the disease anywhere else. We are studying the position carefully. I know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) knows, that the disease started in the south. Nobody knows why there have been far more incidents in the south-west than in the rest of the country. [Interruption.] The south-west would not think its economy was over-heated. Compensation is at about the right level. The animal withers and dies, so is worthless even if the farmer does not notify, although we have no information that farmers are not notifying us of the disease.

Mr. Skinner: Can the Minister say whether there has been any incidence of the disease in Leicestershire, particularly in Blaby? Can he also confirm that if human beings eat large quantities of meat that has been infected by "spongy brain", the disease can be transmitted to them? Could Ministers, who go to large banquets, be infected with the disease, and can he confirm that that is why the Chancellor has tunnel vision?

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman began well. There have been outbreaks of the disease in every county. [Interruption.] The disease does not affect meat, therefore neither I nor the Chancellor can be affected by it.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on acting so swiftly and circumspectly to contain the disease within animals—if not on the Opposition Front Bench. Has the Ministry managed to achieve proper incinerating facilities? In the south-west we are concerned about the open burning of the repulsive carcases.

Mr. Thompson: There was open burning of carcases in Cornwall, at Lean quarry, in Peasedown St. John and in Cheriton Bishop in Devon. That has now stopped. We have a perfectly adequate facility in Hertfordshire, where we are collecting carcases and taking them to the incinerator in refrigerated vehicles. That facility is in Royston and will meet our needs for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Heffer: What about heifers?

Dr. David Clark: As the BSE-type disease has jumped species from sheep to cattle and there is some evidence that it has jumped to humans, why is the Ministry withholding cash for vital research work on BSE, which obviously poses a potential threat to public health?

Mr. Thompson: The answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is that we have found the disease only in female cattle, with one exception, so he had better be careful.
The answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is that there is no evidence that the disease can move from cattle to human beings. Scrapie has been endemic for many years and there is no evidence that it will move from sheep to human beings. We are burning the animals and have banned the milk in order to be doubly safe. We have spent a great deal of money on this disease and its eradication. We may be accused of spending too much, but I am sure that we cannot be accused of spending too little.

Sheepmeat

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the sheepmeat regime will next be discussed in the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Economic Community.

Mr. MacGregor: I expect the Council to discuss the review of the sheepmeat regime again at its next meeting on 12 December.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sheepmeat production is of particular importance to the west of the country, with only uplands to work, and where little else can be done with the ground? Does he agree also that the stabiliser package, as it is currently running, not only ignores imports from eastern Europe and New Zealand, but penalises United Kingdom and European production? Is there not, therefore, a case for seeking a marked reduction in imports from New Zealand under the voluntary restraints agreement below the level of 205,000, which is currently on the table, bearing in mind that at present New Zealand is putting in only about 200,000, yet this works against the interests of United Kingdom producers?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the sheep sector, not only in the west country uplands, but in uplands throughout the United Kingdom. I am aware of that in the negotiations on which we are embarking. The stabiliser was introduced because of the escalating cost of the sheepmeat regime, now estimated to be more than I billion ecu, from a much lower base only a short while ago. The stabiliser was introduced to control that and it relates entirely to increases in flocks in the European Community.
My hon. Friend will know that imports from New Zealand and elsewhere are a major aspect of the review of the regime that we are undertaking. There is a draft agreement with New Zealand. The arrangements with New Zealand are GATT-bound, but we shall have to see how the negotiations go as we proceed with the review. I expect that that will take a long time.

Mr. MacDonald: Is it right that under the stabiliser proposal upland sheep farmers in less-favoured areas may face cuts in premiums because of increases in production on lower ground, particularly as a result of farmers who grow grain moving to sheep production? Can the Minister guarantee that that will not happen? If he cannot, will he look at the case for increasing the hill livestock allowances to compensate?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give a guarantee that that will not happen because, clearly, stabilisers are introduced in this sector, as in any other where there is a high cost in the regime, in order to control the costs of the regime. It is not possible to distinguish across the Community where the sheep receiving the benefits come from. I am aware of the importance of the sheep sector to the uplands, which is why I excluded grazed fallow from the set-aside scheme. I wanted to ensure that upland farmers were protected from what I would otherwise have seen as unfair competition. I did that because I was strongly aware of the sector's importance to the uplands.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that food prices and agricultural support are at their lowest level for 20 years? Does he realise that depressing agriculture prices is doing vast harm to the industry and to the British economy in general?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that question is entirely related to the review of the sheepmeat regime, but I should like to say that it is important to ensure long-term stability for our farmers. That is what I have been keen to secure. While we have surpluses and the heavy cost of disposing of them, long-term security is on a fragile basis. I acknowledge the splendid contribution that farmers have made to food production and to keeping food prices down. I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I hope he agrees, however, that we must ensure security for the long term. Getting rid of surpluses and their cost must be part of that.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with European Community Agriculture Ministers about reform of the common agricultural policy; and what agreements were reached.

Mr. MacGregor: Discussions are continuing in the Agriculture Council on Commission proposals for reforming the CAP regimes for sheep and beef.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In his negotiations with the Commission, does he share the view of the deputy director of the agriculture department of the Commission—Mr. Pooley—who said in Clwyd last week that, in his opinion, the common agricultural policy is likely to lead to farms with no sensible income that nobody but farmers would accept? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that statement?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not entirely sure that I know what that statement means. That farmers would have no sensible income? That they would have lower incomes? If that is what Mr. Pooley said—he has never said it to me —I do not agree with him. We are anxious to secure a good, stable basis for the prosperity of our farmers. In other member states in the Community, I understand that there are a lot of small, non-viable farmers with non-viable incomes—many more than in Britain. That problem will have to be tackled.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the future of the sheepmeat regime? Will he give a rather more positive response to the view just expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)? Does he agree that, since punitive milk quotas were imposed on the United Kingdom, many farming areas have been suitable only for sheep, so the sheepmeat regime is of considerable importance to the United Kingdom? Is it not extraordinary that the CAP does not show where surpluses and the huge additional costs to it that arise because of the increased number of sheep. Will my right hon. Friend consider that in future discussions in the European Community?

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly will. The sheep sector is expanding rather faster here than in many other Community countries. There are very good reasons for that, one of which is that we are good at it. In negotiations on the sheepmeat regime, I am anxious to secure arrangements that allow free but fair competition, provide support at reasonable cost and enable the United Kingdom to capitalise on our natural productive advantages in the sheepmeat sector. That is what I am out to secure, and I believe that it is exactly what our sheep producers want.
I am sure my hon. Friend knows that dairy quotas now have widespread support throughout the British farming community.

Mr. Maclennan: In answer to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), the Minister sounded more concerned about New Zealand sheep producers that about sheep producers in our own hills and uplands. Why is that his objective?

Mr. MacGregor: That is certainly not the impression I intended to give. I hope that the answer I have just given shows that I am fighting for United Kingdom sheep producers in order to secure the best possible arrangements in the future regime.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) raised a matter of great importance for small farmers throughout the country? Will my right hon. Friend try to


direct the energy of his fellow Ministers to reform the common agricultural policy and to protect farmers from partial and unbalanced programmes such as the BBC's "Watchdog", which made unfounded, dangerous and alarming allegations about eggs?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, certainly. For small farmers, we must put the matter in perspective. The thrust of some policies geared towards small farmers being advocated in the Community would not be advantageous to the United Kingdom, because they are directed at the type of small farmer, that we do not have. Those are the unviable farmers, and I am not sure that those policies make sense.
On the issue of salmonella in eggs, it is important that the media put across a balanced view. There have been a small number of outbreaks in relation to total egg consumption per day. There have been 26 outbreaks this year, and 30 million eggs are consumed per day. Therefore, the risks are small. Having said that, we and the industry are determined to ensure that we minimise the risks to the maximum extent possible. We are considering further measures to enable us to do so.

Farmers (Northern Region)

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent correspondence he has received from farmers in the northern region.

Mr. Ryder: We receive substantial correspondence from farmers in the northern region on a wide variety of issues.

Mr. Devlin: The Minister will be aware from recent correspondence that, although many farmers in the northern region have had a good harvest, they have not had a good financial year? I ask him, on behalf of the farmers in my region, what advice he has to offer them? Is he asking them to get out of agriculture altogether, should they diversify, or just soldier on regardless?

Mr. Ryder: We shall, as always, be keeping a close watch on information about farm incomes that emerges from the annual review. Work is still being done on the figures. However, it is clear that although there is pressure in some sectors, others, such as the dairy sector and farms in less-favoured areas, both of particular relevance to the north, appear to have had a better year. I am convinced that the policies we are pursuing are the best way to ensure a viable and stable farming industry in the north.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the proximity of the northern region to Scotland will be making farmers and farm workers in the north of England aware of the burdens that will result from the imposition of the poll tax on employees whose employers at present pay their rates for them? Will he seek to avoid the distress and difficulties that are presently being created for farm workers in Scotland by immediately asking the English Agricultural Wages Board to take steps to avoid that problem being created for farm workers in England and Wales in a year's time?

Mr. Ryder: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Labour Front Bench. Under the community charge, if an employer wishes to pay the community charge of an

employee he is still entitled to do so. It is not for me to interfere with matters that are looked after by the Agricultural Wages Board.

Licensed Victuallers Association

Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Licensed Victuallers Association.

Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), met representatives of the National Licensed Victuallers Association on 25 April 1988, in the company of several hon. Members, including the hon. Member, himself.

Mr. Allen: Does the Minister agree that there are now large numbers of people in the brewing industry who own pubs but who are not brewers by trade—they are property developers, speculators and so on? Is he aware that their tenants and publicans are not covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, nor by the voluntary code of practice to which brewers adhere? Will he meet the LVA to discuss how to tackle the problem?

Mr. Ryder: I would be pleased to meet the LVA. There are very few instances such as those raised by the hon. Gentleman, but he is right to draw attention to them. In the case of recent relatively large scale pub sales by one of the major brewers, Grand Metropolitan, to a non-brewer, Heron, the contract of sale required the buying company to respect the provisions of the code, so the tenants continue to enjoy that protection. We would expect similar arrangements to apply to other similar sales. If there are other cases which the hon. Gentleman would wish to draw to my attention, I hope that he will do so.

Mr. Colvin: May I suggest an easy solution to my hon. Friend? That is, to give statutory backing to the brewers' code of practice on tenants' security.

Mr. Ryder: That is a matter for the Brewers' Society in consultation with the LVA, and I am not convinced yet that both those organisations wish to go down the path that has been recommended by my hon. Friend.

Green Pound

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in securing a further devaluation of the green pound.

Mr. MacGregor: Following persistent United Kingdom pressure in the price negotiations in July, the green pound will be devalued from 1 January 1989 to reduce monetary compensatory amounts by 3·2 points, except for beef, where devaluations will be considered during the current review of the regime.

Mr. Livsey: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am pleased to hear that there will be a devaluation. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is not suffcient, with farming incomes at their lowest in real terms since the last war? Will he press for a further devaluation in addition to the one that he has said is on the books?

Mr. MacGregor: Devaluations of the green pound are normally considered in price negotiations. We achieved one of the best deals, with the exception of Greece, where


exceptional circumstances applied, in the last negotiations. I have made it clear that I want to see MCAs phased out by 1992. I have succeeded in getting the Community to agree to that. I shall be persisting in that approach.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Andrew Bowden: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be departing immediately this afternoon to attend the European Council at Rhodes.

Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to repudiate claims so assiduously put about by the Opposition that the failure of the Irish Government to expedite an extradition order in respect of Father Patrick Ryan is due in any way to an error on the part of the Crown Prosecution Service?

The Prime Minister: I understand that very shortly my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be dealing with these matters in response to a private notice question, and will deal with them fully. I can deal with them only generally. Any suggestion that the failure to secure Ryan's arrest is attributable to any fault of the CPS is absolutely unwarranted. The fact is that the Irish authorities could have sought a provisional warrant from early last Friday evening onwards. The Irish Attorney-General has been in a position to authorise the backing of the original warrants since they arrived in Dublin early on Saturday. It is now over five days since all the relevant documents were sent to Dublin. No questions have been raised as to the sufficiency of the statements of fact and law, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had told his opposite number that he was immediately available.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister share the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that mortgage interest payments should be withdrawn from the retail prices index?

The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that there was no immediate proposal to exclude mortgage interest payments from the RPI. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is an advisory committee which considers any changes to the RPI. The Government's view is well known. We include mortgage interest payments in the retail prices index, which very few other countries do. It obscures the underlying trend and produces the perverse effect that the tightening of monetary policy causes an apparent rise in recorded inflation. However, the payments are included, and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that they can have a perverse effect both when the RPI goes up and when it comes down. If the payments were excluded, an alternative measure would need to be added. There is no immediate proposal to exclude them.

Mr. Kinnock: We remember when there were "no immediate proposals" to break the link between pensions and earnings. We remember, too, when there were "no plans" to add new NHS charges. We recall also when there were "no immediate proposals" to freeze child benefit payments. Against such a background of mendacity—[Interruption.]— who can believe that the Prime Minister has no plans—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Yes, it is true. It is true.
With such a record of assiduous mendacity, who can believe that the Prime Minister does not want to take mortgage payments out of the RPI?

Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman called my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a liar. He should withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with this. The right hon. Gentleman used the word in a general sense and not attributable to the Prime Minister personally.

Mr. Marlow: Coward.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that that word was not directed towards me.

Hon. Members: It was.

Mr. Marlow: I was using the word in a general sense, Mr. Speaker, but if you so wish—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman presumed, and I am sure that he would not do that, to call me a liar, I hope that he will withdraw that immediately.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear what you said, but if you so wish, I will certainly withdraw it.

The Prime Minister: And we remember when there was a promise to increase pensions by either the amount of inflation or by having regard to earnings. The pensioners got neither, because the actual increase in inflation under the Labour Government was too great for Labour to honour its promises and the Labour Government did the biggest cheat on the pensioners that has ever been known since pensions were started.

Mr. Kinnock: That was a pathetic dodge from the queen of frauds. Even if household costs do not figure large in the Thatcher family, they do figure large in families in the rest of Britain. Will the Prime Minister accept that any British retail prices index which does not include mortgage payments would be fraudulent? Is it that which attracts the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: The biggest fraud on the pensioners cost them the equivalent of £1 billion in 1976 under the Labour Government. Pensioners now have more certainty of their basic pension and of its increasing with inflation than they have ever had before. The right hon. Gentleman knows that mortgage costs are included in the retail prices index. If they were not, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, there would have to be some other measure of housing cost in the RPI. Any alternative measure would have to go to the advisory committee for consideration. A measure went to the advisory committee on mortgage interest some time ago and the committee turned it down, so mortgage interest payments are in the present retail prices index.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very exceptional Mr. Kinnock. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Kinnock: This Prime Minister has taken £5 billion a year off pensioners by breaking the link between pensions and earnings. When she starts to give that back, we will start to respect her.

The Prime Minister: May I point out what the then Mr. David Ennals, now Lord Ennals, said with regard to that when challenged about that assessment. When challenged about the inflation or earnings he said:
There is a statutory obligation to take these figures and earnings into account which was done, but"—
said a previous Secretary of State for Social Services—
no statutory obligation to get it right.
The Labour party got it wrong.

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the run-up to Christmas the Post Office unions are already up to their seasonal nonsense of striking and that nine depots in and around my constituency of Billericay are out on strike? Will she assure the public that, so that they will receive their Christmas post, the Government will remove the one obstacle that prevents the private sector from competing, by lowering the threshold from £1 to 10p, so that private networks can afford to compete with the Post Office in delivering our Christmas cards?

The Prime Minister: I know that there has been some considerable disruption in my hon. Friend's constituency in the counters business and I join her in deploring that. It is extremely ungenerous at this time of year, but, more than that, it is damaging to small businesses, which depend on money and orders coming in for their business to continue. I have taken note of what my hon. Friend said. The Post Office has a monopoly and if this kind of thing continues we shall have to consider precisely what she says —reducing the monopoly threshold from the present level of £1.

Mr. Hume: Given the difficult and emotional relationship between Britain and Ireland over the years, and the serious efforts that the Prime Minister and her Government, together with the Irish Government, have been making over the last number of years to address that issue, what contribution to that process does she think her remarks made on Tuesday—her highly orchestrated pre-judgment of the Irish authorities' attitude before they had taken the decision on the extradition application in accordance with their legal processes? Does the right hon. Lady know that the Belgian authorities were given five months to deal with the same application, which they turned down because the evidence was imprecise and vague? Does the right hon. Lady know that the Irish authorities have extradited 895 people to the United Kingdom throughout the present troubles and in the past 12 months have made the biggest arms finds in our history? How does that square with her accusation that they are only interested in fine words, not actions?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Hume: Will the right hon. Lady tell her Attorney-General that his behaviour in revealing to the press selected details of a private conversation with his opposite number in Dublin is highly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. The hon. Gentleman should not make a statement.

Mr. Hume: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his say.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the law on extradition was changed unilaterally by the Republic of Ireland. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General endeavoured fully to comply with the new law. It is now more than five days since all the relevant documents were sent to Dublin and no questions have been raised about the sufficiency of the statements of fact in them. That is an important matter to all of us in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the time of the passage of the Education Reform Act there were dire warnings from teachers' unions and Opposition Members that parents would not come forward as school governors because of their responsibilities under that Act? Will she contrast that with the experience throughout my constituency, where large numbers of parents have stood for those positions, where there have been high polls and where the quality of candidates coming forward has been superb?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The extra choice being given by the education reforms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has been welcomed up and down the country by many parents and they are coming forward in record numbers to be governors of schools, prepared to take full responsibility, recognising the chances of obtaining a better education for their children. That is welcome.

Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: In drawing up her Government's Official Secrets Bill, the Prime Minister and her Home Secretary have excluded from it any rights of public interest as a defence for disclosure. Why have they done that? Has the Prime Minister forgotten that the public interest is what government is supposed to be about?

The Prime Minister: The Bill has been published. I am advised that there are no such rights now as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Bill has, on the whole, been much welcomed as an advance on the previous measure. There will be abundant chances to debate it on Second Reading and in Committee.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that shortly after the PLO spokesman in London was convincing the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the PLO would recognise the existence of the state of Israel, the BBC reported that the PLO foreign affairs spokesman in New York denied that any such statement had been made and refused to endorse it? Is my right hon. Friend aware also that the whole House is behind her stand against terrorism? It is perfectly consistent with that stand that any Government should say to anybody—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly. This is not a statement, but Prime Minister's Question Time.

The Prime Minister: As far back as 1985, when we were considering speaking to certain PLO executive members, I made clear my position that three conditions must clearly be met. First, that United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 must be clearly accepted; secondly, that Israel's right to exist behind secure borders must be clearly and explicitly accepted; thirdly, that violence must be utterly rejected. When the Palestinian National Council resolution came out, I took the view that, although it was not absolutely clear, what had been done in respect of United Nations resolution 242, although allied to other United Nations resolutions, was a clear step forward. On the other hand, Israel's right to exist has not been explicitly recognised, nor has violence been utterly renounced.

Patrick Ryan

Mr. John Morris: (by private notice): To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to seek the extradition of Patrick Ryan to the United Kingdom.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The Government have sought the extradition of Patrick Ryan from Belgium and the Metropolitan police sought it latterly from the Republic of Ireland.
In the Belgian proceedings, which followed Patrick Ryan's arrest in Belgium on 30 June 1988, extradition was sought in respect of the following offences: (1) conspiracy to murder; (2) conspiracy to cause explosions; (3) possession of explosives with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property; (4) possession of explosive substances without a lawful object.
Our own prosecuting authorities consulted the Belgian prosecuting authority before initiating the extradition proceedings and were given no reason by the Belgian authority to suppose that the request might fail to satisfy Belgian legal requirements. The extradition of Patrick Ryan was authorised by the Belgian court of first instance on 26 September, subject to the approval of the Minister of Justice, and by the Belgian Court of Appeal of Brussels on 12 October in respect of the two conspiracy charges.
As I understand it, Patrick Ryan's case then fell to be considered by the Belgian Minister of Justice. On 25 November—Friday—the Belgian Government refused to order extradition and ordered Patrick Ryan's repatriation to the Irish Republic. On learning on Friday afternoon of the Belgian decision and that Patrick Ryan was expected to arrive in Dublin that evening, an immediate application was made by the Crown prosecution service at Bow street magistrates' court for fresh warrants for Patrick Ryan's arrest, as was necessary to comply with Irish requirements. Warrants were issued in the late afternoon and facsimiles at once transmitted to the Irish authorities in Dublin at 6.20 pm. Facsimiles of the documentation, which the Irish Attorney-General requires under the provisions of the Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987, were transmitted to his Department between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm that evening.
That documentation contained a full statement of the facts upon which the allegations were founded, a statement setting out the relevant English law, and a certificate by me that it is the Crown prosecution service's clear intention to bring a prosecution and that that prosecuting authority has satisfied itself that there is sufficient admissible evidence to found a prosecution. The documentation with which I provided the Irish Attorney-General last Friday fulfilled the requirements of the legislation.
On Friday the Metropolitan police had requested the Gardai to obtain provisional warrants for the arrest of Patrick Ryan pending the arrival in Dublin of the warrants just issued at Bow street, which in the event were delivered to the Irish authorities in Dublin in the early hours of Saturday. No provisional warrants, however, were sought.
My Department was in touch with its counterpart in Dublin late on Friday night with a view to enabling me to speak to the Irish Attorney-General, Mr. Murray. That was because we had learnt that the Metropolitan police had been told by the Gardai that no action was to be taken

on any warrant until the two Attornies-General had spoken. In the event, I spoke to Mr. Murray for the first time when he telephoned me at 10.30 am on Monday. He informed me that he was still considering the documentation. I drew attention to the risk that Ryan might discharge himself from the clinic where he was undergoing treatment, and asked him to make an early decision.
Mr. Murray acknowledged that risk. I told him that if there were any problem with the documentation or any other question I would be immediately available. No question about the adequacy of any of the documentation sent to him for the purpose of the 1987 Act has been raised with me. I understand that Mr. Murray is still considering the application.
Before the effective warrants were obtained on Friday, warrants in draft form were submitted to the Irish Attorney-General's Office on Wednesday 23 November. That followed a helpful practice, for which I am grateful and which has been developed between the two Departments, the law and practice in relation to warrants being different in the Republic of Ireland from that in England. Those documents were sent on a contingency basis lest the Belgians should decide to repatriate Patrick Ryan. The draft warrants did not constitute the sending of a request for extradition: the very purpose of sending drafts to the Irish is to allow them to comment on the form of the warrant. I mention that because of certain misleading publicity.
Irish officials, apart from drawing attention to two minor details and to certain purely presentational matters, expressed themselves content with the form of the proposed warrants. The Bow street warrants took account of those comments on Friday. On Saturday 26 November, the Irish authorities alerted us to the omission by the Bow street chief clerk of a date in the certificates accompaning the warrants. That omission, which we were advised was not a serious matter, was immediately rectified the same day.
We believe that this matter affected neither the Gardai's statutory power to seek provisional warrants from Friday evening nor the statutory power to back the effective warrants on their arrival in Dublin early on Saturday morning.

Mr. Morris: How far have future applications been assisted by the Prime Minister's hysterical outburst on Tuesday, and in particular by her endorsement of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates)? Does not the Attorney-General agree that Belgium and Ireland are sovereign states and cannot be treated as erring Cabinet Ministers? As the Attorney-General has acknowledged today that there is a difference in practice in each country, should not—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters about which the whole House wishes to hear.

Mr. Morris: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
Should not the Attorney-General have first advised the House? Surely he should not have allowed the Crown prosecution service on his behalf to brief the press, given the danger of prejudicing a fair trial. The Attorney-General knows of my support for him in extradition matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] He knows of it and he would be the first to acknowledge it, but why can he not get his act right? What has become of the Home


Secretary's promise that the Director of Public Prosecutions would ensure personally that warrants were checked for accuracy and sufficiency?
Will the Attorney-General confirm that on Wednesday, when draft warrants arrived, Irish Government lawyers pointed out a number of serious flaws—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—and that on Thursday the Irish Attorney-General's officials telephoned urging that the correct material be sent over; that on Friday new flaws were discovered, and some of the supporting documents were unintelligible; and that only on Saturday were correct certificates faxed through? If Ryan had been wrongfully arrested, could not that, or future extradition proceedings, he at risk? In any event, he would have had to be released late on Sunday, if arrested on a provisional warrant on Friday.
Will the Attorney-General confirm reports that it was the Irish Government who suggested the possibility of advance warrants and material if things went wrong in Belgium? Why were steps not taken earlier to give them ample time to consider a complicated matter? The Irish seem to have been at fault for five days. The Belgians had five months. What, since Tuesday, is the status of the "close and personal relationship" between the Attorney-General and his opposite number in the Republic, about which he was pleased to tell the House as late as 14 June of this year?

The Attorney-General: If I may deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first question, he knows perfectly well, from his own extensive and distinguished practice in the law, that there is no value in answering a question that is based on a false premise. However, I utterly reject the premise on which he founds his question: that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's observations on Tuesday are in any way to be criticised.
As to future applications for extradition from the Republic of Ireland, I hope that lessons will be learnt from this application which may facilitate what I trust and believe to be the object of both Governments: to bring persons who are suspected of serious offences to justice in the courts of the country where the offences are alleged to have occurred.
I am asked whether I ought to have advised the House first. I do not think that I can be accused of being backward in coming forward with statements. I have volunteered more statements in this House in a shorter time than any other Attorney-General in living memory. [Laughter.] However regrettable it is, the situation today is that I have made an application for the extradition of Patrick Ryan and I am waiting for the response of the Irish Attorney-General.
I was asked whether I should get my "act right." I emphasise what is said in the statement—a copy of which is before the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that no complaint or even query has been raised as to the sufficiency or propriety of any of the documentation that is before the Irish Attorney-General. I believe that I have set out, in what I hope is helpful detail, the whole history of the matter.
Much misleading publicity has been given to what took place in connection with draft warrants, sent on a contingency basis, during the earlier part of the last week. They were sent for the specific purpose of their being commented upon by the Irish Government. The comments that were made were incorporated in the effective warrants

that were issued on Friday at Bow street. It is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that provisional warrants—for which there is statutory authority in Irish law, as he knows—can be issued before the original warrants arrive in the Irish Republic for backing. That is possible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and rightly has mentioned it, that such warrants have a three-day life. Somebody who is arrested under them has to be released by the end of three days, unless a substantial warrant has been backed.
This case, in which my colleague, the Irish Attorney-General, has already taken five and a half days to consider these matters, gives point to the objections that the British Government raised at the end of last year when the new unilateral legislation was put forward by the Irish Government, giving the Irish Attorney-General the duty to satisfy himself that there is a sufficiency of evidence and a settled intention to prosecute. There will be many cases
—and this is not one of them because the Irish Government say that they know where Mr. Ryan is—in which somebody is suddenly arrested and there are three days for the whole of the procedure to be gone through. It is plain that in this case, which has required five and a half days, the procedure is gravely flawed, as we said it would be.
I was asked why, if the Belgians had taken five months, the Irish should be expected to do it more quickly. That is a thoroughly bad point. The Belgian Government requested that we should initiate extradition proceedings. The police then had to investigate the evidence. When the evidence was found to be sufficient to support four charges, the advice of the Belgian authorities was sought, given, and followed through. It was only then, much later, that the proceedings took place in the two courts which authorised the extradition of Patrick Ryan on the conspiracy charges subject to the approval of the Belgian Minister, as I have informed the House today.
Finally, I was asked about my relationship with Mr. Murray. I stand by every word of the description of that relationship that I gave on an earlier occasion. I have a close relationship with Mr. Murray, I trust one of friendship. We each have our duty to perform. I have performed mine and I am quite certain that Mr. Murray will perform his. I just wish that we could reach a decision rather quickly.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. and learned Friend surprised at the attitude of the Irish Government? To put it bluntly, have we not been double-crossed by them? Did they not promise in the Anglo-Irish Agreement to deprive wanted terrorists of immunity from extradition? When they did so deprive them, did they not at the same time give their Attorney-General the power to delay or to veto any warrant—provisional or otherwise—and has not the Irish Attorney-General used that power to the great disadvantage of justice?

The Attorney-General: I appreciate the depth of feeling that lies behind my hon. Friend's question. However, I do not subscribe to the verb he has applied to the Irish Goverment. The power given to the Irish Attorney-General to direct that there shall be no endorsement of an English warrant was given to him in consequence, so it was said by the Irish Government, of the fact that the Irish Government were to ratify the


European convention on the suppression of terrorism. Whatever the reason for giving it, we pointed out at the time that it would act as an obstacle to extradition. I very much regret to say that it is so proving.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: While recognising that the Prime Minister's remarks expressing surprise about what happened in Belgium were wholly understandable in the circumstances, particularly in the light of what the Attorney-General said about the advice tendered by the Belgian Government, does he accept that comment about proceedings in Ireland does not help when the matter has not been concluded, and advancing arguments about the adequacy or otherwise of what the Government or the Irish Government are doing can be only for partisan advantage and not to further the course of justice?

The Attorney-General: What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday was that the failure to secure the arrest of Patrick Ryan was a matter of very great concern to the British Government. The hon. Gentleman must surely realise that it is a matter of great concern because proceedings are now in train and warrants have been issued. It is not for me to talk about the facts behind the charges that we wish to bring against Patrick Ryan, but the hon. Gentleman knows from the very nature of those charges which I have read out today, how serious the matter is. Of course it is a matter of great concern and every Member of the House, whether Prime Minister or not, is entitled to express his view.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is it not clear that the decision of the Belgian Minister of Justice not to accede to our request for extradition was taken not on legal grounds but on political grounds? Did not the Belgian Government add to their shame by sending Mr. Ryan to Dublin from Brussels in a Belgian military aircraft? Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand the increasing concern of people within and without Northern Ireland that we should continue to confer upon a Government who harbour suspected terrorists a position of special privilege in relation to that part of this kingdom which has been afflicted most grievously by terrorism?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that it seems to be the case that the Belgian Government's decision was taken on political grounds. I say that it seems to be the case, because their procedure requires that the Belgian Minister of Justice shall consult the Appeal Court and ask for its recommendation. I have already told the House that we understand that the court of first instance and the Appeal Court had authorised extradition on two conspiracy charges. Therefore, it would seem unlikely that the recommendation of the Court of Appeal would differ from that authorisation. But that is secret, and we do not know whether or not it is so. All that I can say is that it has been reported in the Belgian press, so I understand, that the recommendation was to authorise extradition. If that is the case, it is a very regrettable matter for all who are concerned with the fight against international terrorism, as we have always understood the Belgian Government to be, along with their allies.
It is the case that Patrick Ryan was put into a military aircraft. It is perhaps even more significant that, although

we had received several informal assurances that we would have 24 hours' notice between the decision of the Belgian Government and the deportation of Patrick Ryan, we were given no notice at all. That is why, when the warrants were obtained at Bow street, the very greatest haste was necessitated, because he might have been in the air at that time.
I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me from answering the last part of his question, which he will recognise falls outside my own responsibilities.

Mr. Peter Archer: The Attorney-General has confirmed that, for whatever reasons, the Irish authorities are still considering the application. As that consideration is a judicial process concerned with the assessment of evidence, I again ask the Attorney-General whether the Prime Minister's immoderate attempt to apply pressure was unconstitutional, counter-productive and prejudicial to any prospect of a fair trial.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it was deeply regrettable that the Belgian authorities left so little time for the matter to be properly considered? Does he agree that it was an even greater pity that it took so long between Friday and Monday for the matter to be given the consideration that it required on both sides? Furthermore, does he agree that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure and that, at bottom, we in this country and those in the Irish Republic are both concerned about the repression of terrorism? Is it not the case that, if these matters are not sorted out within the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, both countries have an enormous amount to lose?

The Attorney-General: I believe that we must secure between our two countries a more effective procedure for obtaining what we both want, which is the bringing of those suspected of serious offences to justice in the country in which such offences are alleged to have occurred. I have said all that I need to say about the Belgian decision, the reasons why it was taken, and the manner in which it was communicated to the British Government.
As to the procedure that is now going on in the Republic, I have to await the decision of my counterpart, but I draw attention to the fact that, in spite of having asked to be told if there was any difficulty or problem, and having told my counterpart that I would be immediately available if that was of any help, I have heard no word. Therefore, I can only hope that a speedy and favourable decision will be reached.

Mr. James Molyneaux: As anti-terrorist co-operation from the Dublin Government was the only quid pro quo for the British humiliation of Unionists, is there not an obligation on the Dublin Government to co-operate freely and in a civilised fashion and to make that co-operation on an unconditional and unreserved basis?

The Attorney-General: I believe that no reason can legitimately be given for any failure to co-operate in the fight against terrorism, to which both Governments are committed.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that yesterday, as chairman of the Anglo-Belgian parliamentary group, I saw the Belgian ambassador to tell him of the strength of feeling among hon. Members of this House about what has happened? Can he enlarge on the strength of the evidence about Ryan that was available to the Belgian authorities in this episode, which is all the more distressing following, as it does, the impressive life-saving rescue exercise by the Belgians when the ferry sank off Zeebrugge?

The Attorney-General: I note what my hon. Friend says. I thought it right to send a letter to the Belgian ambassador three or four days before Friday drawing attention to the seriousness of the matters for which we desire to place Patrick Ryan on trial. I cannot talk about the strength of the evidence because, following the issue of the warrant, technically, criminal proceedings are in train.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is it not important that those against whom there are allegations of being involved in terrorism, whether in Ireland or anywhere else, should be brought to trial promptly? Is it not also true that, whether anyone in the House likes it or not, all the inquiries that I have made in the south of Ireland show that people who do not support the Provisional IRA believe passionately that a fair trial is not obtainable here?
Does the Attorney-General recall that following an agreement made with the Government of the right hon. Member for Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the Irish Government asked for the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1975, under which people may be brought to trial in the country where they are at the time? Would it not be worth considering using that Act? Unless something is done, the man—who has not yet been proved guilty—will not he brought for questioning or for trial.

The Attorney-General: I do not believe there is the slightest justification for any feeling in the Republic of Ireland that there is no prospect of a fair trial in England. We are in no need of lessons on how to devise and implement fair judicial procedures.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the Irish Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. But that cannot be a substitute for extradition under the terms of the extradition arrangements between the two countries. In some cases it is proper to use provisions of that Act and, in appropriate cases. I am delighted to make the necessary request. I did so only last week in the case of Sloan. The Irish Attorney-General has accepted that request and matters are proceeding. Although the use of the Act has not been raised with me as a possibility by the Irish Attorney-General, it would not be appropriate in this case because there is good reason to doubt whether the Irish courts would have jurisdiction under the terms of that Act in respect of two of the four charges.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The IRA terrorists must be chuckling with delight at the attacks made on the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General—who fills his office with distinction—and his officials who have been seeking the extradition of Patrick Ryan to the United Kingdom. Sadly, such remarks will be quoted in support of the IRA throughout the world. Will the Attorney-General consider extending another invitation to his counterpart in Dublin to get together to resolve the problems that have arisen

frequently in the past? Perhaps he might also be able to refute the allegation that has been made in the House this afternoon, time after time in the media, and all over the world, that an Irishman cannot get justice in a British court. If that is so, why do tens of thousands of Irish people from the Republic emigrate to Britain?

The Attorney-General: While I am grateful for those personal remarks, I know it not to be the opinion of the Irish Government that there is no fair trial to be had for an Irishman in this country, and if it were otherwise, how could we explain the amendment to the Irish Extradition Act in 1987? Why not abrogate it completely? I know that that is not the view of the Irish Government, and no shred of justification for it could exist. I am always ready to talk to my opposite number. I put in train attempts to speak to him late on Friday night, but unfortunately he was not able to speak to me until 10.30 on Monday. I have told the House what transpired then. I hope that we shall continue to have a close and sensible relationship. Before I came to the House, I made arrangements for the answer that I was proposing to give to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) to be faxed to him, although not long before, and I trust that we shall be able to move forward.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Crown prosecution service told us that there were mistakes in two of the warrants that were sent to Dublin. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Irish Government have said that there were two mistakes in those warrants. I tend to take the view of the Crown prosecution service, because it has been making those mistakes consistently for a number of years, and seems to be the expert on it. It is his duty to clarify that question, and I ask the Attorney-General to do so. Has he realised the damage that was done to the opinion of moderate people in Ireland when the incompetence of the Crown prosecution service degenerated into prime ministerial vindictiveness? Will he try to get his colleague the Prime Minister to retract the insults that she made against the Irish Government?

The Attorney-General: If the Crown prosecution service was guilty of as much inaccuracy as was revealed in the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, there would indeed be cause for anxiety. I made it clear, I hope, in my answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon that, on a contingent basis, draft warrants were submitted to the Irish authorities in the early part of last week. I drew attention to the comments that were made by the Irish in respect of those. Perhaps I can amplify them to a small extent, and without wasting time. Of the two minor details that I mentioned, one consisted of a form of description of the charge that had been settled by leading counsel in this country. The other consisted of one superfluous word in the draft court clerk's certificate. The most significant of the presentational matters that I mentioned consisted of a form previously accepted by the Irish authorities in the recent case of McVeigh.

Sir Giles Shaw: What my right hon. and learned Friend has said, the manner in which he has said it, and the frequency with which he comes to discuss these issues in the House is wholly acceptable, as is the way in which he discharges his onerous responsibilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Will he take note, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will


take particular note, that there can be no progress in the fight against terrorism without complete international co-operation? As there have been these difficulties over the technicalities of expressions on documentation, or over the acceptance on either side of the Attorney-General's fence that quick action should be taken, the overall result is a decline in the effectiveness of anti-terrorist measures throughout Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Community. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the Attorney-General in the Irish Republic that if this is the way that things will proceed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister cannot maintain the commitment that we have so far shown?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I agree, as I think will every hon. Member, with what he went on to say. There is no doubt that the attack upon international terrorism calls for sophisticated co-operation, and there is no doubt that vociferous and sometimes powerful minorities will resent such cooperation. I hope that it is agreed on all sides that they must not be allowed to impede that co-operation. There will be no shortcoming in the co-operation that I and Her Majesty's Government offer to our friends, and we hope for no more than the same in return.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Instead of throwing a fit of tantrums last Tuesday afternoon and whipping up the anti-Irish feelings of some of her Back Benchers—notoriously the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates)—the Prime Minister should have shown a greater awareness of the extradition procedures of other nations. Why is it that those two faulty details of last weekend's extradition warrants, which the Attorney-General seeks to dismiss so lightly, have been a feature of a majority of the extradition warrants that have been directed across the Irish sea during the past three years?

The Attorney-General: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's observations.

Mr. Duffy: It is true.

The Attorney-General: Certainly not. I would have thought that he would have welcomed the helpful practice that has grown up between our two Departments, which I mentioned, whereby whenever there is time and it is practicable, draft warrants are submitted on a contingent basis for the very reason that the law and practice of the courts in Ireland relating to warrants is different from that in this country.

Mr. Duffy: Why not get it right?

The Attorney-General: I might suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets it right himself.

Mr. Duffy: I have got it right.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question. I assume in his favour that he would like to hear the answer that I am endeavouring to give. He speaks of defects in the warrant of last weekend. There were no defects. No problem has been raised with me by the Irish Attorney-General. It has not been suggested that there was anything wrong with the warrant of last weekend. There was a problem about the omission of a date in the chief clerk's certificate. We were told that it was not serious and could be corrected on Monday, and it was corrected on Saturday. It has had no effect.

Mr. Michael Mates: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) only makes himself more ridiculous by those remarks? If I were to be criticised by some of my hon. Friends, it would be for having been the most ardent supporter on the Government Benches of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated quite clearly that there is no sign from the Irish Government that any of the warrants are defective, and as my right hon. and learned Friend has made that abundantly clear, both in his statement and in his answers, and as the Irish authorities allege that they know where Ryan is, is there any reason why he should not now be detained, pending a decision?

The Attorney-General: The crucial distinction of this case is that Patrick Ryan, according to the Irish Government, is in a place the whereabouts of which is known to them. Therefore, presumably it is possible for a warrant, if it is backed for execution, to lead to his arrest.
It is quite true that no problem has been raised with me. If there is one, I remain available to do what I can to help, but I cannot help feeling that, as five and a half days have gone by, any insufficiency would have been drawn to my attention by now, if one had been perceived.
I did not deal fully with what was said about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's intervention last Tuesday. I have read it and have it before me now. I really cannot see that any objection can be taken to her view, expressed no doubt with feeling, that it is
a matter of very grave concern"—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 574.]
that the arrest has not been authorised.

Mr. Tony Banks: Read on.

The Attorney-General: I believe that some rather offensive and highly coloured interpretations have today been placed upon her comments.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question and that we have had more than double the length of time that I would normally allow for it.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 5 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill.

Motion to take note of EC documents relating to Community finance. Details will be given in the Official Report.

TUESDAY 6 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

WEDNESDAY 7 DECEMBER and THURSDAY 8 DECEMBER —Second Reading of the Water Bill.

FRIDAY 9 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on the multifibre arrangement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of relevant EC documents will be given in the Official Report.

MONDAY 12 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Electricity Bill.

Monday 5 December 1988
Relevant European Documents

(a) 7271/88
1989 Budget: Commission's proposals


(b) 7758/88
1989 Budget: Preliminary Draft Budget


(c) 7908/88
1989 Budget: Draft Budget


(d) 8996/88
1989 Preliminary Draft Budget: Letter of Amendment


(e) 9286/88
Draft Budget of the European Communities of 1989 changes proposed by the European Parliament

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 43-xxxv (1987–88) para 5
(b) HC 43-xxxvi (1987–88) para 2
(c) HC 43-xxxix (1987–88) para 5
(d) HC 43-xxxix (1987–88) para 6
(e) HC 15-ii (1988–89) para 4

Friday 9 December 1988
Relevant European Documents

(a) 11580/86
Yugoslavian Textiles


(b) 11621/86
Taiwanese Textiles


(c) 6104/87
Taiwanese Textiles


(d) 7207/87
Multifibre arrangement: Bilateral Agreement with Thailand


(e) 6647/88
Multifibre arrangement: Bilateral Agreement with Hong Kong


(f) Unnumbered
Multifibre arrangements: Bilateral Agreements

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 22-viii (1986–87) para 4
(b) HC 22-viii (1986–87) para 5
(c) HC 22-xx (1986–87) para 3
(d) HC 22-xix (1986–87) para 5
(e) HC 43-xxxii (1987–88) para 4

(f) HC 22-v (1986–87) para 3 and HC 22-viii (1986–87) para 3.]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
First, can he yet tell us when we can expect a statement that the Government have changed their policy on the inclusion of mortgage interest rates in the retail prices index?
Secondly, may I remind the Leader of the House that the Standing Orders of the House require the establishment of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? He is responsible for this long-running breach of Standing Orders and breach of faith with the people of Scotland. He and his colleagues are quick to chide others for anything that they think contravenes our rules. Will he try to keep them himself, or does he just think that the rules apply to the Opposition? When will he either set up the Scottish Affairs Select Committee or give us the promised half-day debate about not doing so?
Thirdly, 10 December sees the 40th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on human rights at a time when half the countries of the world have political prisoners, a third of them use torture and Britain still persists in exporting leg irons to several of them?
Finally, will he tell us when we are to have the first Opposition day debate? We have now had 20 days of Government business of one sort or another since the last Opposition day debate and we did not get a fair share in the last Session. When shall we have the first bit of our share in this Session?

Mr. Tony Banks: Answer.

Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I certainly will answer.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is a hard person to please. We have just completed six days of debate on the Loyal Address, during which the Opposition chose the subjects for debate. However, I recognise that, under our Standing Orders, the Opposition are entitled to days, and I shall see to it that those are provided. I shall do my best to arrange a debate as soon as possible. The exact date is best discussed through the usual channels.
As for the other questions raised by the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the question of the retail prices index. As he is well aware, there are no present plans to make a change in that matter. Of course, any change would have to go through the proper processes, if it were contemplated in the future.
With regard to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, as I have said repeatedly, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the events. I have put up proposals that are unacceptable to the Opposition, which I deeply regret. I have also offered a time for a debate and I understand that that was not acceptable either. However, I certainly intend to arrange a debate on this matter before Christmas and suggest that the exact timing is best left for discussion through the usual channels.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that human rights are an important matter. I am sorry that time does not permit me to arrange a debate on the day that he suggested. However, there will be occasions between now and Christmas when hon. Members who believe that there are points to be made on that subject will have the opportunity to do so.

Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the number of "take note" motions on European legislation that we have had recently late in the evening? Such legislation is reviewed by the Select Committee on European Legislation, but, by the time it reaches the Chamber, it is already in force.
Some of those matters, such as that affecting the motor industry, have considerable financial implications. If our colleagues in the European Parliament are unable or unwilling to exercise control over the Commission in this matter, it is most important that Members of this House should be informed so that the interests of their constituents may not be prejudiced by the matter going through without any effective discussion before the decision is taken. Will my right hon. Friend therefore look at the matter and consider finding time for a debate on it, as I am sure that many hon. Members are concerned about the present practice?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the feelings in some parts of the House that these matters do not always work out as satisfactorily as they should, and I agree that they do not.
It is difficult to choose the right moment for these debates. If we have the debates too early in the process, many things have changed before the time for decision has come. Sometimes, particularly at the end of a presidency, things happen very rapidly and we fail to have the debate in the time that we should find it most useful to discuss those issues. The Government believe that these debates are valuable and helpful to negotiations, so it is not I who wish to deny these debates. It is simply a practical difficulty, which I shall do my best to overcome on a day-by-day basis.

Mr. James Wallace: Just as the failure of the House to set up a Scottish Select Committee is a reflection of the Government's weakness in Scotland, is it not also a fact that the Scottish provisions for privatisation of electricity, coming in the same Bill as those provisions for England and Wales, are another reflection of that weakness? Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that at least two days will be devoted to the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill to ensure that the very distinctive Scottish provisions get a proper hearing?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept either of those points and, judging from the way in which the hon. Gentleman put his questions, he did not expect me to. I do not accept his interpretation of the position of the Scottish Select Committee. I suspect that we are in this difficulty because of the lack of realism in some parts of the House, but that is another matter. [Interruption.] However, it is a matter for the debate, when it comes.
With regard to the Electricity Bill, the way that the Government are proposing to proceed, by a Second Reading of the Bill as published on 12 December, is the best way forward.

Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend has, as is customary, given us the business for next week, but for no more than next week. Does he appreciate that it would not only be for the convenience of Members, but would enable us to do our job better, if we could sometimes have notice of the programme of business a little further ahead?
I imagine that my right hon. Friend is at present discussing with our right hon. Friends the dates for Second

Reading debates on a number of Bills that have recently been introduced. Would it be possible for him to consider allowing us to be privy to what is accepted to be a provisional future programme of business so that we can do our job better rather than keeping it to himself until the Thursday of the week before?

Mr. Wakeham: I have no great secrets that I am keeping from my hon. Friend. Business has not been arranged for Tuesday 13 December or any day after that. It will depend on how we get on.
I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's remarks, but I do not see an easy way of altering the current practice. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Members have a particular interest, we try to be as helpful as we can and give any possible indication of approximate dates.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: When is the subject of televising our proceedings likely to return to the Chamber? Some of us—particularly hon. Members with certain political views—are deeply concerned at having to sit here hour after hour trying to intervene in debates and Question Time and never being called. Is it not time for the House to be televised so that our constituents and the people in the country can see that we are at least trying to raise matters that they are anxious about, even if we are not always successful?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is far too modest in these matters. My impression is that, in spite of the difficulties under which he labours, he seems to be able to put across his view forcefully. The House will be the poorer if he does not continue to do so. Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman does not always get exactly what he wants, but he does pretty well for all that.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about televising the House. It would not be right for me to anticipate the decisions of the Select Committee considering that matter. It is a complex matter and we are working hard on it. We are making good progress and those of us who spend every Monday evening on the matter will be happy to bring a report back to the House of Commons as soon as we can and for the House to decide what to do then.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to find time between now and the end of the calendar year for a debate on the Channel tunnel fast rail link? Is he aware that options 1 and 2—for north-west Kent—are wholly unacceptable to the people of Dartford? Is he aware that, if the Government allow no opportunity for debate in the near future, the first opportunity for Kent Members to debate the matter for the benefit of their constituents will be on the British Rail private Bill, which will be introduced in the autumn of 1989? That is totally unacceptable to us in Kent.

Mr. Wakeham: I understand the importance of the subject to my hon. Friend and his constituents. I cannot promise a debate before Christmas, but there will be occasions when he will have an opportunity for ventilating the points about which he feels strongly.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? We who are not privileged to know the workings of the usual channels are entitled, as the House is, to be


given some idea of his thoughts on the matter. Is it not an affront to Scottish opinion—especially when former Conservative Members of the House are talking about a more equal Union—to have, encapsulated in one Bill, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board privatisation and the South of Scotland Electricity Board privatisation along with electricity privatisation in England and Wales? It is an affront to our equal Union and the Leader of the House, who has strong responsibility here, will put the Union in jeopardy if he continues to behave in this way.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept that for a minute. It would be a bigger affront to the House if I sought to make the speech that I intend to make when we have a debate on the Scottish Select Committee in the middle of business questions rather than at a proper time and in a properly arranged debate. A motion will be tabled for that debate and it will be tabled in good time. It will enable the hon. Gentleman, should he be called, to make his contribution. I hope that he will not continue to make sedentary interventions, which do not help matters.

Mr. Douglas: You are a disgrace as Leader of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Douglas: —with all due respect.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a question and he is now getting an answer to it.

Mr. Douglas: That is what I am not getting.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has had the answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is it not highly regrettable that on Monday, after 10 pm, we shall discuss an important European measure, when this week in Parliament there have been three similar debates after 10 pm? Would it not be more helpful if some earlier time could be made available—perhaps at 7 pm, as for private business—for some of the more important Euro-measures so that the House could consider them properly and Ministers did not have to stay up until 1 am, but could have a reasonable rest and pay the measures proper attention?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree, and that is why such a measure is on the Order Paper today. We shall begin to debate it as soon as business questions have been dealt with.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: In view of the Carlisle report on probation, after a summer in which the police stations of England have occasionally been filled to overflowing with prisoners and after another year in which judicial sentences seem to be becoming longer and the rights of defendants are under even greater threat with the threat to the right to silence, does the Leader of the House agree that it is time that we had a debate in the near future on sentencing and how we deal with convicted persons? Surely the time has come when there must be some other solution. If the other place is allowed to discuss the matter, as happened the other day, this House should be able to discuss it, so that we can at least give some vent to our feelings. That may influence how the judiciary and other authorities deal with convicted prisoners.

Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with that point. It is a perfectly reasonable matter for debate, but I have to

arrange Government business and, as the hon. Gentleman will willingly agree, some aspects that he raised will be relevant to a number of Bills before the House. The subject that he raises is eminently sensible for an Opposition day, and I suggest that he talks to his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is becoming urgent that we should have a debate on the future of the Post Office? Does he recall that we had a serious strike in the summer which damaged small business considerably? Is he aware that there is industrial action at post offices now, particularly in the west midlands? People are becoming worried, and I hope that he will take that on board.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, but I cannot see how I can arrange a debate in the immediate future. However, I shall bear the point in mind.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The Leader of the House was good enough to tell his hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that we should perhaps consider a forward programme. He is introducing the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill next week. On the horizon—and suggested in this morning's press—over the next two or three weeks are the Security Service Bill and the so-called reform of the Official Secrets Act 1911. When considering this legislation, one should remember the background of GCHQ and legislation for the prevention of terrorism. We are facing a major question of freedom, as it is under attack in a number of ways. I ask the Leader of the House not to introduce the remaining two Bills on the secret service and Official secrets at least until after Christmas so that some consideration may be given to the totality of repression that is being introduced in so short a time.

Mr. Wakeham: It is to protect our freedom that most of the Bills are being brought forward; that will be made abundantly clear in the debates.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an early opportunity to remind those who say that it is impossible for an Irishman to receive a fair trial in this country of the case of Shannon and McGlinchey in 1985? They were both extradited from Dublin to Belfast and one of them was accused of murdering a Unionist Speaker of Stormont and his son. They were both acquitted.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well.

Mr. Keith Vaz: When will the Leader of the House make time available for an early debate on the important issue of the allocation by the Home Secretary of more officers for the county and Metropolitan police forces? He will recall that, when the matter was last debated in the House, hon. Members from all parties expressed the concern felt by people who live in Leicestershire that no extra police officers had been allocated to Leicestershire for 1988–89. As a decision is imminent, does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on this important issue?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree that these are important matters, but I cannot promise Government time for the debate. However, there will be opportunities that the hon.
Gentleman can use. If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about it, I am sure that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who is an expert in raising constituency matters, will give him advice.

Mr. David Wilshire: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Order Paper now contains a substantive motion—early-day motion 83—calling for the dismissal of Judge Cassel.
[That this House deplores the recent sentence of two years probation given to a man found guilty of sexual abuse of his 12 year old stepdaughter; considers that the reported statement of Judge Sir Harold Cassel, Q.C., when sentencing the defendant, that his wife's pregnancy 'led to a lack of sexual appetite in the lady and problems for a healthy young husband' effectively condones the crime of sexual assault; and therefore calls for the dismissal of Judge Sir Harold Cassel.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Members on both sides of the House wish to discuss that motion at the earliest possible moment so that we can all make it absolutely clear that this House does not consider that a wife's pregnancy is justification for sexually molesting young girls, nor that probation is a sufficient sentence for sexually molesting children of any sort?

Mr. Wakeham: I have seen the early-day motion and I recognise the strength of feeling. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is considering these matters, so it is right for me to make no further comment.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), does the Leader of the House accept that the workings of the usual channels on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee have been particularly murky since they have denied access to information, not only to individual hon. Members but to parties which wish to see the Committee established? Is his promise of a debate before Christmas to be taken any more seriously than his promises last Session that there would be a debate before the House rose in November? Will such a debate be on a positive motion or will the Government merely give up the attempt ever to establish the Committee?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for a minute that any promises I have given to the House have not been fulfilled. I share the hon. Lady's concern about the workings of the usual channels in this matter, because they have not been able to produce a solution which is satisfactory to both sides. For that reason we shall find time for a debate and it will be on a motion to resolve the matter. I cannot announce the terms of the motion now.

Mr. Michael Latham: If we cannot have a debate next week on the Post Office, can we at least have a statement from the Secretary of State for Employment that industrial relations in the Post Office will be referred to ACAS for an impartial report? Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Melton Mowbray have had no post for the past two and a half weeks and that this is the third such dispute this year? It is absolutely ruinous for small businesses.

Mr. Wakeham: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall certainly refer his suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will obviously want to consider the best way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Greville Janner: I thank the Leader of the House for his kind compliment earlier, but on this occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) needs help from the right hon. Gentleman, not from me: there should be a debate on police resources in Leicestershire and why people in the city of Leicester have been allowed no additional police for the past two years despite requests from the chief constables. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should also be a debate on why we are receiving no help from the Home Secretary when crime has doubled in the county? Can we at least ask the right hon. Gentleman to be kind enough to request a statement from the Home Secretary before the recess?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Paul Marland: Can my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the General Development Order which contains the somewhat surprising proposal that clay pigeon shooting on any one site should be cut from 28 to 14 days before planning permission is required? That was introduced with no discussion either with Members of Parliament or interested parties and should not continue.

Mr. Wakeham: I want to apologise to my hon. Friend on behalf of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who accepts that the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association should have been among the 250 bodies that have been consulted. In view of that, my hon. Friend proposes to consult the association as well as the Sports Council and others soon on whether an amendment should be made to the order to revert to a maximum of 28 days' permitted use of rights for clay pigeon shooting.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Leader of the House will know that this House has not debated the spread of AIDS in recent memory. Is he aware that hon. Members like me want to make the point that the Government's record is lamentable, there having been precious few cautionary measures or publicity for at-risk groups, such as prisoners, the armed forces and the business travelling public, and little hospital treatment and community care for sufferers? When can we have a debate on this important subject?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman takes this matter seriously, as do the Government, and I hope that he does not seek to turn it into a partisan issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is appreciative of the co-operation of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in discussions and we hope to have as much of a bipartisan approach to this important problem as possible. The tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks did not quite show that. Not long ago, we had debates on the subject, but the hon. Gentleman's memory may not be as long as mine, and there may well be an occasion for another debate in the not too distant future. It is perfectly right and proper that we should discuss these matters and I shall bear his request in mind.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: In view of the sentence passed by Judge Harold Cassel at Knightsbridge Crown court on a police officer who indecently assaulted a young girl, will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Home Secretary and ask him to invoke the provision contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1987 that would entitle the Attorney-General to refer that lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal for re-examination? It has not yet been invoked. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the Labour Members who voted against that provision may now rethink their position in the light of this case?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government are naturally anxious about any statement made by a public figure which may be interpreted as condoning the sexual abuse of children. However, the remarks attributed to Judge Cassel were made in the context of his judicial duties, and it would be constitutionally improper for the Government to comment further. I understand that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is calling for a report into the matter and I shall make my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary aware of my hon. Friend's points.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that since 1979 this Government have spent billions of pounds on the police service—on manpower requirements, earnings and equipment needed to do the job efficiently. Will he on behalf of his Government now seriously consider having a debate on the important question of law and order because my colleagues and I feel that it is necessary? We aim to be helpful. Figures announced today show that crime has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. That is a shocking record. Let us do something about it.

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the substantial amount of increased resources—about 50 per cent. in real terms—that the Government have spent in support of policies dealing with law and order. It is a major problem. We had a day's debate on home affairs during the Queen's Speech debate when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) raised these matters. I agree that we should have another debate, but I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman one, however important the matter, in the near future.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend believe that there is what is called a democratic deficit in the ability of elected representatives at whatever level to scrutinise and amend important European legislation?

Mr. Wakeham: What I do recognise is that, in any House of Commons, as was made abundantly clear to those of us who sat through an interesting debate on procedure last night—I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was able to be with us—one thing is clear: if we increase the amount of time that we spend on one subject, we reduce the amount of time that we can spend on another. I do not pretend for one minute that our present arrangements are perfect, nor do I pretend that each hon. Member might not have a different balance. I shall bring forward proposals for change when I am convinced that there is a reasonable chance of a majority being in favour of them.
I do not think that the issue which my hon. Friend

raises is one of the areas where we established last night that we could make progress, but I shall consider it. I read the interesting article written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) in The Times last week. I am sorry that he has not been well. I hope that he will soon be better and among us again. Had he been well, I think that he would have made those points in last night's debate.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Leader of the House consider the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) are not alone in wanting a debate on policing? I also would like such a debate. There is much anxiety in Greater Manchester—the police authority and the chief constable believe that there are not enough policemen and women to do the very necessary job of the police. The Leader of the House knows that, from time to time, we have debates in Government time on the Metropolitan police because of the constitutional arrangement which applies to that force. I put it to the Leader of the House as a serious point that it is about time that we had a debate on this important matter of police resources throughout the country.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that that is a serious question. I treat it perfectly seriously. We had a debate on home affairs recently during the debate on the Loyal Address. I would like to satisfy all the demands on our time, but I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate in the immediate future.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can I be helpful to the Leader of the House in terms of his medium-term planning? Will he take into account the fact that, whenever he decides to slip in the writ for the Richmond, Yorks by-election, some of us will be in our places in the hope of exploring how, if the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is clean enough, in terms of the deception of the House, to go to Brussels, that can mean only one thing—that she is not clean enough to be in No. 10 Downing street?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make allegations of that kind. Will he kindly withdraw those allegations made against the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and the Prime Minister?

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to get into any kind of trouble with the Chair. Of course I withdraw, but I must say that, having looked at Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you may care to reflect on whether what I have said is unparliamentary. The word I used was "clean".
If the Leader of the House's memory is as good as he boasts, could he explain during the debate on the writ why the Opposition Chief Whip, as documented in detail in Magnus Linklater's story of Westland, "Not with Honour", was so vehement that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks could not continue as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Mr. Wakeham: I imagine that the Opposition Chief Whip will not move the writ for the hon. Gentleman's constituency while he is still a Member; nor will my right hon. and learned Friend the Government Chief Whip


move the writ while my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is still a Member.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made the most scurrilous and un—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with that at the time.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Energy and ask him to make a statement at the Dispatch Box on the announcement this week by British Coal that the Union of Democratic Mineworkers is to have negotiating rights at the two new super-pits which have been developed in Britain, although it may not have any members at either pit?

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Wait and see.

Mr. Skinner: It is scandalous that a party and a Government who brag about democracy will allow British Coal to give negotiating rights to a union even though it has no members, albeit it is a bosses'union. It is almost like telling Tiny Rowland that he can negotiate on behalf of Harrods shareholders.

Mr. Wakeham: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will be making the same point when he and Arthur Scargill are the only two members left in his union. The question that I think he raises is one for the management and unions of the industry, not for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I, as a Westminster ratepayer and Member, ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a statement on the rate support grant settlement implications of the sale of the lease on Conservative Central Office by Westminster city council?
Is the Leader of the House aware that Westminster city council's internal auditors have asked the chairman of the Conservative party for details of the transaction involving the sale of the lease acquired from Westminster city council, and that he had to date refused to provide that information? Westminster ratepayers want that information and are entitled to have it in the public interest. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the questions asked by the auditor are fully answered? The public in Westminster want to know about this massive property speculation that the Tory party is undertaking.

Mr. Wakeham: I will not add anything to what has already been said about this except to ask why, as a

ratepayer and constituent in Westminster, does the hon. Gentleman not have a word with his Member of Parliament—my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Because he is the chairman of the Tory party.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Cash: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that.

Mr. Banks: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the televising of Parliament? During last night's debate on procedure, I heard two members of his Committee talking about "if" we have the televising of Parliament rather than "when". Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a chance to discuss the report, a copy of which I have here, produced by the Procedure Committee on the implications for procedure of the televising of Parliament? That would give us something to talk about while we are waiting for the Leader of the House's Committee to give us a report to discuss.
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will not want to get too deeply drawn into the rumours that fly about this place, but will he make it clear that the rumour that it will be at least two years before we have television cameras—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: And the rest.

Mr. Banks: "And the rest," says one of the members of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee. Will he confirm that the rumour that it will be at least two years before we have television cameras in is unfounded?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member has clearly had a tiring few days. He arrived late for yesterday's debate because he had been addressing the good citizens of Weybridge, I think, in the forlorn hope of bolstering the Labour party in that constituency. He then produced a book about fights in the House of Commons in about 1860 or 1870—

Mr. Banks: 1873.

Mr. Wakeham: —1873, but he did not say whether he hoped to move forward to those days. If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the whole of the debate and if he had not been reading his interesting books, he would have known that we discussed the report which he waved around. My hon. Friends who said "if" rather than "when" were of course quite right, because the Select Committee's report has to come before the House and the House has to decide on the basis of that report.

Mr. Banks: What about the rumour?

Proceedings of the House

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you have anything to add to the statement that you made yesterday about the debate on the Loyal Address? You may recall that a number of my colleagues pointed out in the subsequent exchanges that the House was in some difficulty because it had not had sight of a letter which the Editor of Hansard apparently sent to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) some weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No, I am on my feet.
I have had a letter from the Editor of Hansard. However, before I read it to the House, it would be appropriate for me to give a full account of what took place. My statement is rather long but I ask the House to listen carefully.
It is necessary for me to set out the sequence of events as they have now been established in order to be entirely fair to all involved in this incident. It is clear that there were facts to be established, and that, in the first instance, the wrong information was given about what happened.
The hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) knew that the Official Report of 25 October contained an error. As a result of the matter being raised, it is now possible to set the record straight. On 25 October, in a debate on the economy, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) as follows:
The hon. Gentleman talks of the need for self-discipline. In view of his party's wild promises to spend money, will he say how much more than £38 billion his party would now spend?
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is recorded in Hansard as replying:
I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures, but they are clearly wrong. If he produces a list for me I shall look at it, but I can tell him that there is no such commitment."—[Official Report, 25 October 1988; Vol. 139, c. 174.]
It is now agreed on all sides that what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East actually said was, "there are no such commitments."
On 27 October, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) asked me about the accuracy of the report. I informed the House that the report was wrong and added:
On reflection, the Official Report accepts that this change should not have been made and has expressed its regret"—[Official Report, 27 October 1988; Vol. 139, c. 494.]
That statement left the House with the impression that the change had been made at the request of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and that misapprehension arose because at the time the Editor thought that that had been the case.
The Editor subsequently wrote to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East apologising for the error and explaining that he had since discovered that the change had been made by a member of his staff. The Editor sent me a copy of this letter, but since it was not addressed to me I was not at liberty to read its terms to the House as I was asked to do yesterday. I was, however, in a position to

correct the hon. Member for Suffolk, South when he alleged on Tuesday that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East had sought to
pressurise the Official Reporters to amend Hansard."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 582.]
I also made it clear, in column 583, that this was on the basis of fresh information supplied by the Editor since my statement on 27 October, which I now know to be misleading.
I now confirm that there is no truth in any suggestion that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East either changed the text of what was proposed to be reported or asked for it to be changed.
So that the precise order of events may be placed on record, I have asked for a letter from the Editor which I shall now read:
You have asked me for an explanation of how the misreporting of Mr. Gordon Brown on 25 October occurred.
Initially, the reporter reported exactly the words used by Mr. Brown. That is to say, Mr. Brown's response to Mr. Peter Thurnham's intervention was in the plural. The senior sub-editor decided that the response was more grammatically put by using the singular. On reflection, he reverted to the plural but after more consideration he went back to the singular. These several changes of mind resulted in the typescript being untidy. When Mr. Brown read the typescript, he improved the legibility of that final sub-editorial alteration. He did not make any alteration to what the sub-editor had finally decided. When, following normal practice, the sub-editor checked for any alterations by the Member concerned, he saw that Mr. Brown had merely improved legibility. He saw no reason to assume that an alteration of fact had been made and had he done so, again following normal rules he would not have allowed the change. At no time did Mr. Brown discuss that or any other part of his speech with the sub-editors.
I stress again that the responsibility for the error is entirely mine. I deeply regret the embarrassment that has been caused to you and the House, especially to Mr. Brown and Mr. Yea.
That is the text of the Editor's letter to me.
The House is aware that I have already regretted the way in which the issue was raised. I also referred yesterday to the fact that I would deplore it if there were any truth in the suggestions that there had been an organised attempt to disrupt Tuesday's debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "There was."] Order. Perhaps in my own interest I should make it clear that I was not making an accusation that there had been such organisation, let alone suggesting who might have been responsible for it.
I apologise to the House for the length of this statement. It cannot be debated now. If there is a desire to pursue any of the matters my statement contains, I hope that the House will first take time to consider it and then seek advice about the appropriate ways of taking the matter further.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is normally an extremely tolerant place. The House understands perfectly well that some hon. Members use intemperate and perhaps unparliamentary language. The House also understands that sometimes in the passion of events some hon. Members behave in a way which, on reflection, they would rather not have done. However, the tolerance of the House is such that if an hon. Member, even on reflection, finally apologises, that is accepted and is the end of the matter. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the way in which the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) refused to do that means that the continued efforts to raise the matter are a sad attempt to rescue the tattered reputation, credibility and future of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will do as I said in my final comment and reflect carefully upon the matter. I called upon the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) at the time to withdraw an allegation that he made, and he did so.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time I made an intervention in the heat of the moment which might have appeared to cast some aspersion on the Chair and yourself. If that is the case, I totally and unreservedly withdraw it. I would not wish to raise a point of order today for that reason. However, as you so rightly said, if points of order are to be raised, they should be raised at the first possible opportunity.
Hansard, page 432—[HON. MEMBERS: "Erskine May?"] —"Erskine May"; I thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Page 432 of "Erskine May" lists expressions which are unparliamentary. That includes the accusation of right hon. and hon. Members of "misrepresentation". The Leader of the Opposition accused the Prime Minister of mendacity in various particulars. If one looks—

Mr. Speaker: Order. He did not do that. I made that plain at the time. It was a general accusation which was not made personally. [Interruption.] I suspect that I know "Erskine May" rather better than the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He knows that personal accusations against hon. Members are unparliamentary and are not allowed. In the cut and thrust of debate, general accusations are frequently made.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask you to look at the written text when it appears in the Official Report tomorrow and if you wish to reflect on your judgment, perhaps you would be kind enough to come back tomorrow?

Mr. Richard Holt: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. About nine months ago, you made a statement following four questions having been asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Question Time. There may not be many Labour Back Benchers sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman who wish to cross swords with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but many Conservative Members wish to participate in Prime Minister's Question Time. Nearly 10 minutes passed today before any Back-Bench Member had the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. Will you say that you will not allow the Leader of the Opposition so much time during future Prime Minister's Question Times?

Mr. Speaker: This occurs from time to time. It occurred when the hon. Gentleman's party was in opposition. I cannot do what he asks.

Mr. William Cash: I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which you said, when the matter arose, could be dealt with a little later.

Mr. Speaker: I said that I had dealt with the matter at the time. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise it again, I will hear him.

Mr. Cash: I understood the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to say that he did not wish to get into trouble with you, Mr. Speaker. That was not


necessarily a withdrawal of the allegation in itself. It is a matter on which we should have at least some further consideration.

Mr. Speaker: I shall read Hansard tomorrow, but I heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 19 DECEMBER

The Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens
Mr. John Greenway
Dame Jill Knight

Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the three motions.

Ordered,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) (No. 3) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Speaker: I shall now take the point of order of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I hope that it is a matter with which I can deal.

Mr. Mullin: It is, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that the Attorney-General packed up his files to go home before you announced, Mr. Speaker, that you were calling time on the private notice question. Is it in order for the Attorney-General to know in advance how long you intend to allow for such a question?

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea how the Attorney-General would know that. Only I know when I shall call time, and I do not pass on that information to anyone else.

Fisheries

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move:
That this House takes note of the Commission's amended proposals on total allowable catches and quotas for 1989 described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 30th November 1988, European Community Document No. 9312/88 on total allowable catches and quotas for 1989, the Commission proposal on the 1989 Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement with Norway described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 23rd November 1988, the Commission proposal on mesh sizes described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 30th November 1988, European Community Document No. 9185/88 on fishery guide prices and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1989 consistent with the requirements of conservation of stocks.
We are grateful, as on previous occasions, to the Select Committee on European Legislation for its consideration of documents referred to in the motion. I am sorry that complete proposals were not available for its meeting on 23 November, but we were able to provide these For consideration at its meeting yesterday. I realise that the Committee and the House have been asked to address the fisheries opportunities for 1989 with only short notice of the Commission's full proposals. I agree that that is unsatisfactory. With advice from the scientists delayed until the autumn surveys, and the December Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting having been brought forward, we have all been squeezed. That explains the short notice. This is, however, a very important debate, and we thought it right to have it in good time to enable us to take full account of the views of the House in our preparations for the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting next week.
First, let me report to the House the outcome of the Community's annual consultations with Norway which concluded in the early hours of this morning. The details of this are in an explanatory memorandum which was placed in the Vote Office earlier today. Briefly the agreement confirms the Commission's proposals for total allowable catches of North sea cod and haddock. Which are jointly managed with Norway. It modifies the Commission's proposals to reduce the TAC for western mackerel by 20 per cent. to a 12·7 per cent. reduction, but a reciprocal cut in Norway's own quota has been achieved. Importantly, Norway has agreed to flexibility in catching the western mackerel stock east of 4 deg west to which I will refer later. Our herring opportunities will be slightly greater than last year. Our quota for cod in north Norway will, however, be almost halved under the agreement because of the state of the stocks but our distant water fleet can look forward to increased opportunities off west Greenland. I shall return to some of these matters later.
1988 has been a mixed year for the United Kingdom fishing industry, and one not without its difficulties. The total value of landings during the first three quarters of the year was 5 per cent. lower than in the same period in 1987, but that was a record year. Fishermen are fully aware that the fisheries management decisions are certainly not the only reason for that slight decline. In some cases, the fish, for purely biological reasons, have not always been sufficiently plentiful for legitimate quota opportunities to be fully exploited. And there have been cases where the


industry itself has found it difficult to manage its own sectoral quotas to the satisfaction of all those directly involved.
During this year we have seen cuts in quotas of cod at north Norway and Svalbard, although that has not unduly fettered the industry as there is still some quota left to take. We have found the quota for Channel cod inadequate but have not been able to take anywhere near the quota for North sea haddock because of the state of the stock.
There are, however, plus points. We achieved a change in the minimum landing size for nephrops which has helped the west of Scotland and northern Irish industries without adversely affecting the North sea. We have changed the price arrangements for herring so that the withdrawal system can operate and carry-over premia obtained. We have secured a ceiling on expenditure on the costly tuna regime. We see on 1 January 1989 the final step to the introduction of a 90 mm mesh size in the North sea, which should assist conservation of the stocks.
The main purpose of this debate, however, is to look to the future and in particular the prospects for 1989. The Commission's proposals present a clear picture of what these might be. I do appreciate that in some respects these are a cause for concern.
As I have often stated, not least on the last occasion that we debated fisheries, the Government are firmly committed to the conservation and efficient management of all the fish stocks on which our industry depends. We must ensure that short-term gains do not imperil the longer-term viability of the industry, and that point cannot be repeated too often because it is of such importance for the long-term stability and prosperity of our industry.
The Commission's proposals on total allowable catches where available reflect the objective advice of international scientists. Where sufficient scientific data is not yet available, less stringent though equally important precautionary TACs are recommended. These are designed to reflect the needs of the industry provided that the level of effort by the fishermen shows no significant growth.
The TACs for the main whitefish stocks in the North sea are, as I have already said, subject to agreement with Norway during the annual consultations. The Commission and Norway in provisionally fixing the TACs for 1989 have had very much in mind the scientific advice which seeks a general cut in mortality rates for these stocks of 20 per cent. This approach is necessary in order to improve the exploitation pattern in the North sea for what is essentially a mixed fishery. The proposal is intended to have the very desirable effect of minimising the quantity of discards, particularly in the whiting and the hard-pressed haddock fishery.
The proposed TAC for North sea cod is 124,000 tonnes and for haddock 68,000 tonnes. These proposals reflect the fact that we are heavily dependent upon individual year classes and a poor year class spells serious consequences for quotas. The spawning stock biomasses are at unprecedentedly low levels. The Government are well aware that both these proposals will present the fishing industry with severe cuts in their fishing opportunities and this is an issue which we will be examining with particular care in the Council meeting. However, we shall have to take proper account of the biological imperatives. We

must ensure that we do not settle for short-term gains which will make the long-term losses even greater. The possibility of the collapse of those important fisheries might be at stake and we must bear that in mind and probe it particularly closely.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate which has now been truncated. It might be better if I did not give way and allowed my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to respond to the points that have been raised.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: If I gave way once, I would have to give way again. It is probably better that I do not give way in view of the shortness of time.

Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman is frit.

Mr. MacGregor: No, not at all. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to as many of the points that he can in the short time available.
For saithe and whiting where the proposed TACs are only very marginally different from last year at 170,000 tonnes and 115,000 tonnes respectively, the fisheries will be less restrictive, whilst for plaice the proposal is to retain the current TAC level of 175,000 tonnes. For North sea sole, which is not jointly managed with Norway, the Commission is proposing a TAC of 14,000 tonnes, as in 1988. In addition, given the close relationship between sole and plaice fisheries, the plaice TAC is recommended at a level which would require conservation measures to protect the associated sole fishery. On Monday the Commission therefore presented proposals for both a restriction of the size of beam trawlers in the North sea and an increase in minimum mesh size for the first six months of the year. I am aware that that is causing concern and we are urgently examining the likely impact on our industry in order to strike a balance between the difficulties that it might present to our industry against the long-term gain of healthy sole stock levels. As on previous occasions, we shall be exploring the possibility of enhancing our quota through a swap with another member state.
We are disappointed that the Commission proposal for a precautionary TAC for Channel cod is no higher than this year's original TAC, prior to the upward adjustment made subsequently which we pressed for and achieved at the October Council meeting. We shall be pressing the Commission for a more realistic approach to such precautionary TACs. I am pleased, however, that the precautionary TAC for plaice in the Channel has been increased.
On the north-west coast of the United Kingdom the proposals are for a slight decrease in quotas of haddock, saithe, hake and anglerfish, which reflect mainly the annual variations in stocks that we have to expect with biological and environmental factors.
One of the most intractable problems facing the Community and Norway in recent years has concerned western mackerel. The House will be familiar with the difficulties which our own industry has faced in not being able to pursue the shoals as they have crossed the 4 deg west line from the western area into the North sea. It was


with considerable disappointment that, notwithstanding the fact that the Commission negotiated the principle of flexibility with Norway a year ago, the Council failed last December, in spite of our considerable efforts, to agree to the implementing of this technical solution to a major Community problem.
In the interim, the difficulties have not gone away. If anything, they have increased. I therefore welcome the fact that the Commission has been able to negotiate again the principle of flexibility with Norway. The package this year is somewhat more comprehensive than formerly in that the Commission has now agreed with Norway to recommend to the Council that the autonomously determined western mackerel TAC should be set at a limit which will reduce the level of catches. That, however, is in line with scientific data available for this important stock. It is helpful therefore that the Commission has also been able to negotiate a more restrictive level of Norwegian catches in its exclusive zone north of 62 deg and that both parties are agreed on the desirability of protecting that stock.
At the Council last June when we found no support for flexibility around 4 deg west we warned that we would be raising the matter again. We did that strongly in October pointing out that the problem, far from going away, was, if anything, deepening and a solution had to be found. That prepared the way for the consultations with Norway and strengthened the Commission's resolve to secure the principle of flexibility. At the Council meeting next week we shall be pressing very strongly for the principle of flexibility around the 4 deg line to be implemented. I think that it is fair to say that with our unceasing efforts the Commission and other member states are very much more alive this year to the necessity to resolve this important technical problem.
Finally, on pelagic opportunities, I wish briefly to mention herring in the North sea. For 1989, scientific advice suggests a cautious policy in respect of the level of TAC. Consequently, the Commission has agreed with Norway that for 1989 that should be set at 514,000 tonnes. This should enable the spawning stock biomass to recover from current levels. In those circumstances, the Commission has again agreed the zonal attachment for Norway should be 29 per cent., representing 149,000 tonnes. However, the level of transfers by the Community to Norway will he considerably down on the 1988 figure of 53,000 tonnes to 17,000 tonnes, thus enabling opportunities for United Kingdom fishermen to be slightly above current levels.
Of course, once the TACs and United Kingdom quotas have been agreed, we have to decide on their allocation among our fishermen. For the main North sea and west of Scotland stocks, that involves allocations both to those producer organisations which have taken on quota management responsibilities, and to other fishermen in the so-called non-sector. We shall be aiming to better last year's timetable and, provided that we get the necessary information from the industry, we expect to notify interim allocations at the end of January.
We have also continued our strenuous efforts to deal with the quota hopper problem. The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 provides for new tighter registration arrangements for fishing vessels. I am glad to say that those arrangements came into effect today. They require that vessels on our fishing vessel register should be predominantly owned and controlled by British citizens resident in this country. I fully share the strong concern

that has been felt in this House and among our fishermen on this issue, and I know that the new arrangements have been welcomed by our fishermen.
At the same time we have continued to defend vigorously the licensing conditions which we introduced to regulate the crewing and operations of fishing vessels with United Kingdom licences. The Advocate-General's recent advice to the European Court in the Agegate and Jaderow cases has been encouraging and we now await the court's decisions.
In addition to our national measures, we have also pressed for Community action. I am very pleased that the October Fisheries Council agreed new control measures which will allow us to require other member states to report to us on a vessel-by-vessel basis landings there by United Kingdom vessels and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the vigorous efforts that he made to achieve this. These measures were originally set out in document 4893/88 which is amongst those under discussion in the debate today.
The proposals for guide prices for 1989 were agreed at the Council on 28 November following the advice of the Scrutiny Committee that this debate need not hold up adoption. I am very pleased that we have been able to secure a seasonal price for herring which, coupled with the facility to use carryover premium for herring which we secured earlier this year, means that our industry now has a real chance to take advantage of the market support arrangements. The House may recall that the Community have had three reports on the herring market, the third of which is mentioned in the motion, which addressed the problem of herring marketing. That has been of particular concern, I know, to our pelagic fleet in Scotland. I am sure that the measures that we have now secured should give them a firm base on which to build. Other changes were comparatively minor, generally 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. difference or no change. From the comments that we have had from the fishing industry these prices would seem satisfactory.
To sum up, I recognise that this will not be an easy year for some of our fishing industry. Opportunities will be more limited, because of the position of the stocks. Nevertheless, by making the most of the swap mechanism, we hope to maximise usable opportunities to our industry. Let us remember that overall the common fisheries policy is serving us well as the value of landings has increased by 50 per cent. between 1983 and 1987 with only minor fluctuations in the tonnages landed.
Looking to the future, strong measures taken now on TACs should ensure better TACs in the future. We in the Community must also continue to develop sensible ideas on technical conservation measures which are complementary to TACs.

Mr. Archie Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: In fairness I said that I was not going to give way. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. This is their main opportunity in the year and it is important that they should have the chance to express their views. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will respond at the end. We shall both be at the important Council meeting and I shall be listening throughout the debate.
All this can be done within the framework of the common fisheries policy, to which we are fully committed. I shall listen carefully to the arguments and my hon. Friend and I shall be reflecting on all the points made during the debate.
I can assure the House that my colleagues and I will do all that we can at next week's Council to ensure that we maximise the opportunities for our industry within biologically safe limits so that we also preserve its future prosperity. I hope that that approach will have the support of the House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Here we are yet again at the tail end of the year—I almost said at the tail end of the bank—debating total allowable catches and quotas for the new year. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Select Committee on European Legislation which noted that
late publication by the Commission of its fisheries proposals is a perennial problem and reiterates the concern it expressed last year about this and the prejudicial effect on the chances for proper Parliamentary scrutiny.
That is a significant problem for the House. Here we are, four weeks from the end of the year, and we are just debating the proposals for TACs. That is no way to manage an ice-cream cart, let alone an industry which gives employment to 120,000 people, many of whom live in remote constituencies.
Most of our 17,000 fishermen are facing a bleak—not an uneasy—new year with some of these TACs. In May this year, speaking at the annual general meeting of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, the Minister said:
The Common fisheries policy has brought the British fishing industry stability and prosperity … under the CFP the industry can look to the future with confidence.
Not many of them can look to the near future with any confidence.
The Minister has repeated today that the CFP appears to be working fairly well, but British fishermen are much less sanguine than he appears to think. White fish prices are down. They continue to decline and here we are facing a savage cut in certain quotas.
I feel deeply sorry for our fishermen. We cannot blame them for some of the hostility that they are now displaying towards the CFP. Among fishermen, the CFP commands the growing disrespect and lack of trust that many of our farmers show towards the common agricultural policy.
One stark example of that anger and distrust has been expressed recently by the English Channel fishermen who depend largely upon cod, but, unlike the French, are denied reasonable and fair access to the stock. I think that I am correct in saying that the French share of that particular cod quota is 76 per cent., while our fishermen are given a miserly 8·3 per cent.
The British fishermen suffered a closure of the Channel cod fishery in the middle of April. It was opened for two weeks in October and, I am pleased to be able to say, thanks to the prompt delivery of the press release from the Ministry, it was reopened yesterday at 2400 hours.
That two-weeks fishing effort was damaged, as many other cod fisheries were damaged, by the supply of Icelandic cod, principally to the Humberside markets. Fishermen in England and Scotland have sufferd from

those Icelandic supplies. Is it the case, as many fishermen allege, that supplies are coming in from Iceland below the reference price? If so, it is a disgrace.
There is no way that the French will agree to any revision of the share of the cod fishery catch. They will defend the CFP with all the charm that they display in their defence of the CAP. However, changes should be made to give our Channel fishermen a better deal. We should also be demanding a better deal for fishermen throughout the United Kingdom.
Following the Minister's excellent lead, let me hurry along without too many interventions to talk about the proposed TACs for 1989. First, trying to be even-handed in what I have to say about TACs and quotas, I am pleased that the United Kingdom vessels will be able to harvest 2,700 tonnes of west Greenland cod. I should declare a family interest since I have a brother who is the mate of a freezer trawler and that may give him some employment. Naturally, I am pleased about that, but why he wants to go fishing in those dreadful waters God alone knows.

Mr. John Townend: The hon. Gentleman has a better paid job.

Dr. Godman: I am the fair-weather fisherman in the family.
As the Parliamentary Secretary says, that figure, in one of these infernal numberless documents, represents an increase of about 200 per cent. Will he give an assurance that that Greenland catch will be equitably shared among those vessels which have the safety provisions to fish those harsh waters? There should be a fair share of that Greenland catch.
Another sensible proposal referred to by the Minister and contained in another of the documents is the introduction, for the first half of 1989, of a mesh size of 120 mm for the beam trawlers. Despite the problems to which the Minister referred, that is a good proposal and it should enable the growth of the depleted spawning stock.
There is precious little else to commend in the documents. For those fishermen who harvest North sea haddock and cod, the prospects are exceedingly bleak. As Mr. Robert Allen, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, has recently observed:
There is no doubt that the latest scientific advice about the state of the North Sea haddock and cod fisheries is extremely pessimistic and, as fishermen with a vital stake in the future well-being of these stocks, we have to take cognizance of this and be prepared to discuss the relevant conservation issues in proper and reasoned consultation with our scientists.
Mr. Richard Banks of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation has also expressed serious reservations about the proposed TACs. It appears that the United Kingdom fleet faces the dismal prospect of a fishing quota of 46,000 tonnes of haddock compared with 128,000 tonnes in the current year, and for 55,000 tonnes of cod compared with this year's total of 71,000 tonnes. Those are wild and dismal fluctuations from one year to another, which is unscientific.
Fishermen must adhere to the needs of fisheries management and must listen to what the scientists have to say. Our fishermen acknowledge the need to do so and are not as avaricious as, for example, Japanese whalers. They will listen to scientists' warnings and predictions, but sometimes I think of such utterances and statements as being as elegant, accurate and precise as an old


side-trawler staggering and wallowing through the Pentland Firth in a force eight gale. I believe that is how such statements are viewed by many fishermen.
Scientific assessments of the state of valuable fishing stocks should be examined in a tough-minded and realistic way. Current scientific dependence on precautionary TACs are an example of what I mean. They are based on guesswork and not on rigorous analysis of the fishing stocks. Again I quote Mr. Allen:
If there is no change in the proposed agreement terms on cod and haddock, the Scottish white fish fleet will be faced with the prospect of a prolonged programme of tie-ups in 1989.
Both the SSF and the NFFO have expressed fears that a drastic reduction in the domestic catch will encourage Icelanders to send even more fish to the United Kingdom. That view is shared by the Grampian regional council. A letter from its chief executive that I received yesterday informs me:
With the threatened serious reduction in home supplies of fresh fish in 1989 the case for better control of Icelandic imports appears overwhelming. The Council trust that Government will be able to secure a formula, in collaboration with the EEC, which allows in sufficient supplies to keep the processing industry active, but at a price that does not further depress the earnings of the British catching fleet.
I say to the Minister who will be winding up this debate that, as part of such a formula, it might be worth while examining with the Icelandic Government the possibility of resuming British fishing activity in Icelandic waters. I know the Icelanders well, and as they are overwhelmingly dependent on fish, I have the idea that they will refuse to discuss such an innovation. However, raising the subject will at least show them that the House and the Government are deeply concerned about Icelandic imports and their effect on the livelihoods not only of fishermen but of those working in ancillary industries.
I do not want to keep the Minister too busy, but I have another question to ask. I remind him that, in agriculture, overproduction has led to a plethora of remedies, one of which is the set-aside scheme. With their savage cuts in the fishing effort, it seems that the Government are agreeing to a fishing set-aside scheme. Are they currently considering proposals for a fisheries set-aside? If so, fishermen should surely receive the same sympathy that is extended to hard-pressed farmers; why should fishermen be treated differently? Do the Government have any such proposals —I nearly said, on the stocks?
In truth, too many fishermen are pursuing too few fish. That is acknowledged throughout the Community, with the exception of the French and the Spanish. Recently, it was conceded by the Danish fisheries Minister, Lars Gammelgaard, in a speech he made in Esbjerg, that
The Danish fishing fleet is too large in relation to the amount of fish it is permitted to catch.
That problem is shared throughout the Community. He added that at the beginning of 1987, fishing vessel tonnage amounted to 136,000 gross registered tonnage but it had since been reduced to about 127,000 GRT at present, and predicted a fall by the end of 1989 to 117,000 GRT. That is very different from the British experience.
In that regard, the British Government failed to act decisively. In the task of matching the fishing fleet's capacity to the viability of the fish stock, they have been incompetent.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: No, I shall follow the Minister's exemplary lead.
How will the Government meet their obligations to the multi-annual guidance programme for 1987–91? Is it not the case that, in the absence of a fair and reasonable decommissioning scheme, the United Kingdom fishing fleet will remain at its present level? In his latest annual report, the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority comments:
Expansion was the 1987 theme for the UK fleet. By the end of December it had 1,951 vessels of 40 ft and over.
Elsewhere in the same report, he observed:
Ageing continued to be a problem, with more vessels crossing the 26-year-old threshold. At 646 boats, this total increased by 68. Almost two-thirds of Northern Ireland's boats were in this category.
That means that instead of there being a noticeable reduction in the fleet's capacity there has been an increase. We are heading in the wrong direction.
Is it not the case that, if the Government are to honour their obligations, they must implement a reduction in fleet capacity in excess of 11 per cent. before the end of 1991? If so, how will it be achieved—by natural wastage, or by tying up ships because of the savage TAC reductions?
We supported the Merchant Shipping Act 1984 which sought, among other things, to reduce the number of Spanish-based vessels fishing under United Kingdom quotas. We were happy to support the Secretary of State in that respect, but unfortunately that sensible Act has been challenged in the European Court and certain sections may have to be repealed. In addition to removing vessels that are not engaged in fishing, the Government must reintroduce a decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Stuart Randall: On decommissioning grants, is my hon. Friend aware that when those grants were given before they were given exclusively to owners and that the fishermen who served on the vessels received nothing? There has been pressure on the Government to provide some form of compensation; one is only talking about 3,000 or so individuals. Does my hon. Friend agree that some cases have been outstanding for five or six years and have not been heard by the courts? There is terrific concern and a feeling of betrayal—certainly in the port of Hull. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good thing for the Minister, with his new responsibilities, to talk to his counterpart in the Department of Employment and ascertain whether a political decision can be made to solve a problem that has existed for many years?

Dr. Godman: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course, he is absolutely right: the trawler owners who received decommissioning grants did fantastically well out of them. The owner of the Pict received over £500,000, in addition to the £500,000 or so that he received in construction grant. The owners laughed all the way to the bank, but the fishermen were treated very badly.
In the short run, the Government must do all in their power to mitigate the appalling effects of the severe reductions in the 1989 North sea catch figures for haddock and cod. The Minister must reduce the effects of the cuts by referring to The Hague preference, which limits the reductions imposed on United Kingdom fishermen if they lead to social and financial difficulties. The imposition of The Hague preference in regard to haddock should mean that the TAC should not go below 60,000 tonnes for


United Kingdom fishermen. Even that is an appalling reduction, but I think that the industry would survive such a drastic measure, and I should be grateful for such a commitment from the Minister.
I hope that the clearing banks involved in the fishing industry will act sensibly and sympathetically towards their fishermen clients, who do not need harassment from the banks at this time.
The industry itself has offered radical solutions to the problems bedevilling the Government and the catching sector. They include the acceptance of a tighter licensing scheme which would involve the licensing of all bona fide fishing vessels, including those with an overall length of less than 10 metres. The Government must also reintroduce a fair and reasonable decommissioning scheme that will encourage older fishermen with aging vessels to leave the industry in a sensible way. They deserve no less from the Government and from the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): There is a great deal of interest in the motion, and in the best interests of all concerned I hope that hon. Members will respond to my appeal for short speeches.

Sir Michael Shaw: I will do my best to follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is only fair to all those who wish to speak.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has said about the worries that beset our fishermen. That is not surprising, because they are well known and I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's knowledgeable interest in the subject.
Our views are voiced out of concern for the fishermen. I speak on behalf of the inshore fishing fleet of Scarborough and Whitby. Despite all the worries, there is still a great respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister, and an understanding that he is doing his best in very difficult circumstances. My local fishermen are also grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for having taken the trouble to meet them personally as soon as he took office. That was much appreciated.
My hon. Friend will have discovered the deep concern that was felt, particularly about North sea cod quotas. In 1985 the quota was 250,000 tonnes; last year it was 160,000, and this year the Commission's proposed quota —as recommended by the international scientists—was down to 124,000, a further drop of some 22·5 per cent. That is bound to create serious difficulties, which I hope will not be made worse by late announcements of quotas for the various parts of the country. I know that that will depend on how quickly the figures are available.
That latest quota reduction will cause my local fishermen real hardship. I have always said, and I still believe, that the Community agreement had to be reached: even if we had not been in the Community there would still have had to be an agreement with the countries bordering on the North sea. But, having reached that good agreement at the outset, we must ask whether the quota system is working. Many fishermen feel that it is not, and that unfairnesses are creeping in. I do not think that there

are any deliberate unfairnesses, but the exact methods of calculation must be explained as fully as possible so that there are no more mysteries about the results.
The truth is that there are simply not enough fish in the North sea for everyone to catch as many as they want, but perhaps we can find a close season for spawning. I understand that there are difficulties, but we finally managed to arrange a close season and a ban on herring fishing off the Yorkshire coast. More particularly, is it not possible to find a close area for the "nurseries" so that the young fish can grow and there is a better catch in the long run? That idea seems to have a good deal of support among local fishermen.
Are other factors, perhaps environmental or biological, involved in the absence of sufficient fish? I have made some inquiries, and I do not believe that there are enough facts to make that theory believable. One or two fishermen, however, have raised it in connection with the quality of fish that they are catching.
I know that the Minister is doing his best despite great difficulties, and I hope that the local fishermen will find that they can pull through despite the new and greater restriction imposed on them. If quotas are reduced and fishermen's livelihoods are made more difficult, it is even more important that the conditions under which they fish and the port facilities should be the very best that can be made available.
If fishermen are obliged to catch fewer fish, it is important that the fish that they are allowed to catch should be of the highest quality that can command the highest price. The port and handling facilities, the arrangements with the processors and the marketing of fish should be brought completely up to date. Scarborough and Whitby want all the help that they can get. They are going through a difficult time.
I wish my right hon. Friend every success in the negotiations. Our good wishes go with him. I hope that he will fight as strenuously as I know he has fought in the past to ensure that further quotas are obtained for those who fish for cod in the North sea.

Mr. James Wallace: I welcome the opportunity of this debate in advance of the meeting of the Council of Ministers which is to be held on 12 December. It will help the Minister to understand how anxious hon. Members on both sides of the House are about the drastic cuts in the total allowable catch, particularly those for cod and haddock. I had thought that the presence of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Treasury Bench showed that at last he had begun to take an interest in the fishing industry, but unfortunately he has gone.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wallace: No, I do not intend to give way.
These cuts in the total allowable catch, particularly of haddock, in Scotland will have a devastating effect on the economy and on the communities who live around the Scottish coast. It will have as devastating an effect on those communities as, for example, the redundancies that have been announced at Bishopton. That is the relative scale of the problem. It is regrettable that the Scottish Office


Minister who usually answers questions about fishery matters in this House has not bothered to turn up for the debate.
I have already referred to the savage reductions in the TAC, particularly of haddock, which could lead to a £40 million withdrawal of income from the fishing industry. Many people might argue that the fishing industry is overreaching itself and that it does not have the interests of conservation at heart. Fishermen realise, however— perhaps more than anybody else—how important conservation is to the long-term interests of the industry. They know that tomorrow's short-term easy gain jeopardises the long-term benefits to the industry.
It is also important to point out that the TAC for haddock in all but one of the last five years has been no higher than that recommended by the scientists, and that in none of those years has the catch been higher than the TAC. When it was announced last year that there was to be an increase in the TAC for haddock, many people in the fishing industry queried the wisdom of that increase. Therefore, they have every right, when such a savage decrease is announced, to query its wisdom also.
There is something very wrong with the way in which the TACs are set. Such wild fluctuations from one year to another do not allow the industry to develop against a stable background. For that reason the Minister must grasp the importance and seriousness of the proposals, particularly those relating to haddock and cod. Their effects will be serious. Boats could be laid up, with devastating implications for the communities concerned. There will be a knock-on effect on the fish processing industry. The industry stands to lose £40 million on its haddock catch, but the loss of income to the processing side of the industry could be very much more and that would also affect the fishing communities.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked about The Hague preference. When I sought to intervene during the Minister's speech, that was the very point that I intended to put to him. It would have been useful if the Minister could have told us whether he intends to raise the question of The Hague preference when he goes to the Council of Ministers' meeting on 12 December.

Mr. Donald Thompson: The Hague preference was raised at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers. It will be raised again at the next meeting. I shall deal with that matter in my speech.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear. It is useful to know that The Hague preference will be raised by Her Majesty's Government at the meeting on 12 December.
I understand that The Hague preference sets a bottom line limit of 60,000 tonnes of haddock. If the agreed amount for the whole of the North sea, shared between the EEC and Norway, is 68,000 tonnes and Norway gets its share, and if we allow for any industrial by-catch, that leaves about 1,500 tonnes to be shared among all the other EEC countries. That being the case, is the Minister able to deliver on The Hague preference? If he is not prepared to give the House an assurance that he can deliver on The Hague preference, is he prepared to say that he is willing to open up again the agreement on the 68,000 tonnes between the EEC and Norway and to renegotiate that amount? We must know the answer to that question if the

fishing industry is to be reassured. Even 60,000 tonnes represents a very serious decrease in the total allowable catch for the current year. It will put enormous strains on the industry.
The Minister may say that he will seek a mid-year review. I suppose that that would be better than nothing, but it would still put enormous strains on the industry. It would have to look forward to working during the first six months under tight constraints and with no Teal expectation of an increase. We want more than just the possibility of a mid-year review.
The Minister referred to fishing for mackerel east of 4 deg west. He knows that that is important to my constituency. He referred to the agreement that has been reached with the Norwegians and to the number of occasions on which Her Majesty's Government had suggested at Council of Ministers' meetings that there should be flexibility. He also said that an agreement had been reached with Norway for the forthcoming year. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say why he thinks that there will be even greater prospects in 1989 of the United Kingdom being able to achieve agreement with her EEC partners on flexibility.
I have received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) about the cod quota for the United Kingdom as it affects fishermen in Devon and Cornwall, particularly those who can fish only inshore. They feel that the United Kingdom quota should be increased to take account of the fishing needs of that area. I should welcome the Minister's comments on that point.
When does the Minister expect a decision on the current licensing review? If the fishing industry is expected to reduce its capacity this year by 16 per cent., by how much more is the industry to be asked to reduce its capacity by the EEC to take account of lower total allowable catches? That fear must be in the hearts and minds of those who are engaged in the fishing industry. This Bench and the industry never had much confidence in the previous licensing system as an effective means of conservation. I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary saying when we can expect an announcement about the Government's proposals for a future licensing system.
The Minister showed remarkable complacency. It cannot be denied that in recent years the income of the fishing industry has gone up, but the Minister cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the common fisheries policy is working well when in 1988 the haddock TAC shoots up, and in 1989 it shoots down. Something is fundamentally wrong, and it is sheer complacency for the Minister to say that all is well.

6 pm

Mr. David Harris: The purpose of the debate, coming just before the annual meeting of the Fisheries Council, is really to gauge the feeling of fishermen around our coasts. I follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) quite often, and I am always struck by the fact that there is almost a uniformity of opinion among fishermen, he they from my part of the world in the far south-west of the United Kingdom or from his part of the world in Orkney and Shetland. Let me acknowledge straight away that fishermen in the south-west do not face the cuts that face fishermen in the


North sea. However, one has to recognise that cuts or pressures on one species or one area often have a knock-on effect on other species and in other areas.
Although in his concluding remarks the hon. Gentleman was somewhat critical of my right hon. Friend, no Minister, whatever his attitude—and we have an excellent Minister in my right hon. Friend—can create fish when there are no fish. We all have to acknowledge that the catching capacity of the United Kingdom fleet has increased dramatically, as have the catching capacities of the fleets of other nations in the European Community. Unfortunately, fish stocks in general have not increased by anything like the same amount, and in some species stocks have decreased. That is a problem we face today.
Because of those factors there has undoubtedly been a marked change in attitudes expressed in the debate and the attitudes of fishermen in the past few years. In the past couple of years this debate has been quite optimistic. Everyone has recognised that the fishing fleet has done pretty well. In the past 12 months, there has been a change in mood.
A couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was good enough to come to a Committee Room and meet representatives of fishermen of Devon and Cornwall and hon. Members representing Devon and Cornwall. I am sure that it was clear to him that a change of mood has taken place this year. I am glad to say that he is coming to Newlyn in my constituency on Monday and I believe that he is going on to Brixham in Devon later that day. The fishermen there will have an opportunity to tell my hon. Friend exactly what they feel. I suspect that the Minister will have a robust meeting because the mood has changed and the unease which existed perhaps even a year ago has now given way to deep disquiet, and, among some fishermen, to anger.
The concern of those fishing the waters off south-west Cornwall and Devon has centred largely on cod, which appears to be in some abundance. The quotas are not fixed on precise scientific evidence or data—although I share the views of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about some of the attitudes of scientists. However, the cod quota is certainly based on a precautionary TAC. The evidence faced by the fishermen does not bear out the thinking behind that precautionary TAC and the quotas that stem from it.
For historical reasons, the United Kingdom quota for cod in the Channel is very low compared with the extremely large French quota, and that is a constant source of anger. There is nothing worse for a fisherman than to catch fish, sometimes by accident, and because the quota has been exceeded or because a stop has been put on catching, to have to throw those fish back. I believe that that is one of the main sources of anger felt by many fishermen in Devon and Cornwall today.
If one word can sum up the hopes of many fishermen in Cornwall and Devon, it is "flexibility". We do not like it, but we realise that it is difficult to get larger increases in quota. We have had a small increase this year and we hope that the Minister will press for a larger quota for Channel cod in particular. I was a Member of the European Parliament for five years and am aware of the constraints involved for any Minister in negotiating quotas with our

partners in the European Community. Frankly, sometimes there has to be horse trading, and that cannot always be easy.
I am convinced that better management of the existing quota for cod in the Channel is not only possible but absolutely necessary and that there is a greater need for flexibility in the management of that quota. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that point.
Time is pressing, so I shall mention just a couple of other issues. First, the mackerel box fortunately has not been a great matter of contention between me, as an hon. Member representing the south-west, and Scottish Members, as it has been in the past. Without trying to provoke a row, I must say as gently and as nicely as I can that I utterly reject the views of one Scottish fisherman reported in Fishing News who claimed that the mackerel box, the conservation area for mackerel off the south-west coast, was a political box. It is not. It is a genuine conservation measure to safeguard and protect the juvenile mackerel which are found off the south-west coast.
Frankly, I should like some relaxation of the box if, and only if, that were possible within the framework of conservation. I am dreadfully conscious that the few processors in the south-west are feeling the very marked effect of the box on their activities. If it were possible to have a small local fishery without driving a coach and horses through the conservation aspects of the box, nothing would give me greater pleasure than for a local fishery to be opened, but we cannot afford to have the Klondikers back in the box servicing a bigger fishery, as that would be a dreadful mistake.
I now turn to a theme which I have raised in every fisheries debate since I entered the House and at every opportunity in the European Parliament—the scourge and the scandal of the Spanish flag of convenience. I am very pleased indeed that, as my right hon. Friend has said, on this very day the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 comes into force. We hope that its provisions will deal once and for all with the scandal, and will result in the Spanish boats being taken off our register so that they no longer fish against our quotas to the detriment of our own fishermen. I hope and pray that that will be the outcome of that piece of legislation.
However, putting legislation on the statute book is not enough. It also requires application to ensure that the legislation is implemented. My earnest plea to my right hon. Friend, and through him to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who has the duty of implementing that legislation, is that strenuous attempts should be made to rid our register of the Spanish boats which have caused so much harm to our fishing industry. How we have put up with it for so long is really beyond my comprehension. If he gets rid of the boats, in a year of uncertainty, disquiet and even anger among our fishermen, that will be one really positive step forward.
The Minister has a difficult task at the Fisheries Council. I know that he will fight for British fishermen. He knows that behind him is the feeling in the industry that I have tried to describe, and I urge him to remember that when he attends the Fisheries Council meeting.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I shall focus on one area in the interaction between the Government and the Commission—one that belies the claim in the motion that the Government will negotiate fishing opportunities
consistent with the requirements of conservation of stocks.
I refer to the Government's failure to prevent the moratorium on FEOGA assistance for the construction of fishing vessels in the United Kingdom. If we are to develop fishing opportunities consistent with the conservation of stocks, we should think about building up fleets that are undercapitalised, work with old and small boats and pursue stocks that could withstand larger catches. They are not pressure stocks. One example of that is the fleet in my constituency, and the same is true of many areas in the west of Scotland. The moratorium has hit such fleets especially hard and unfairly.
I say "unfairly" because the moratorium was a consequence of the general catching overcapacity of the United Kingdom fleet this year. The fleet in the Western Isles does not contribute to that overcapacity. It pursues nethrops, lobsters and crabs, which could easily withstand an expansion of catching capacity. Stocks of lobsters and crabs would benefit from more catching capacity. It is unfair that those fleets should have been so affected, and the responsibility for it lies squarely with the Government.
Earlier this year I visited Brussels to talk to people in the fisheries directorate of the European Commission to discover the thinking behind the moratorium and to see whether an exception could be made for the boats that do not affect overall capacity. That was impossible, but the clear message that I received was that the moratorium had been imposed reluctantly. It was imposed because of the Government's failure to meet the capacity agreement that they had reached, and their clear failure to give any practical signs that they were serious about resolving the problem of overcapacity.
An important short-term measure could be the introduction of decommissioning grants. The EC would be more than helpful in setting up a scheme. It is not good enough for the Government to decline to consider their introduction on the basis that the previous scheme was not used and did not work well. The failure of the earlier scheme was entirely the fault of the Government, and the use of the failure as an excuse not to proceed with the scheme now greatly compounds the Government's overall failings.
The Government's responsibility is clear. The problems have hit many fishermen who, using their limited capital, have made plans to develop their boats and fleets, with the assistance of the EC. The Government's failure to resolve the problem has cut their legs from under them. It is incumbent on the Government to pursue all possible solutions to the problems, especially of the fishermen who were caught out this year.
May I make one suggestion in relation to fishermen who had applied for FEOGA assistance this year but who were not even considered for such assistance? Some of them were on their last application for FEOGA assistance, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to urge upon the EC the possibility of fishermen whose cases were not heard this year having their applications rolled over into next year. Those fishermen do not pursue pressure stocks and work with small boats. They desperately need the capital.

It is not fair that their applications, whose merits have not been heard because of the Government's failure to resolve the problem, should fall by the wayside.
I apologise to the Front Bench spokesmen for the fact that I shall not be here for the closing speeches because I must be elsewhere. I hope to return to the Chamber later tonight.

Mr. Keith Mans: I support the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) in saying that we cannot allow the problem of fishermen's compensation to go away. I urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to do what he can to persuade his colleagues in the Department of Employment to consider these matters once the latest court cases have been dealt with.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that a difficult year lies ahead and that we must take every opportunity to use the facilities that are available to our fishermen.
The extensive documents involved in the proposals make for difficult reading and illustrate one of my main points: that too many bureaucratic regulations have a detrimental effect on our fishermen. I urge my hon. Friends to call for greater simplicity and a more straightforward approach. I hope that my plea is heard not only by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but in Brussels.
There is little doubt that complications in obtaining licences and transferring licences from one vessel to another, to say nothing of their intrinsic value, regardless of which vessel they are attached to, make life difficult for skippers and vessel owners. Therefore, I should like to see flexibility in the interpretation of the regulations and their enactment to take into account the difficult position in which individual fishermen find themselves.
In that context, I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he recently dealt with a problem arising from the transfer of a licence from one vessel to that of a fisherman in Fleetwood in my constituency. The solution was satisfactory, and it was a correct interpretation of the regulations used sensibly.
I thank my hon. Friend also for taking the time recently to visit Fleetwood and to see at first hand the state of the fishing industry in that port today compared with what it was like many years ago. There is little doubt that, on the west coast and elsewhere, the industry needs all the support it can get from his Department to ensure that it remains viable within the context of the European community's fishing regime.
During his visit, my hon. Friend was interested in the initiatives that had been shown by the local council—the Wyre borough council—in setting up the fish dock management company, which is already taking steps to make the port of Fleetwood a better port and, in particular, improve facilities in the Channel. Another initiative is being taken by the council and by Associated British Ports to widen the scope of activities in the port of Fleetwood, in particular to build a marina.
I am keen to see at least one scheme that is already on the drawing board go ahead as soon as possible. The borough council and I want a scheme to be chosen that has in mind the interests of the fishing industry. Such a development has potential not only further to improve navigation and port facilities but to reduce the cost base of


fishing activities out of that port—that is important—and, in so doing, make fishermen operating out of Fleetwood more able to compete with fishing fleets from countries abroad. There is little doubt that such developments will result in more employment both within the industry and elsewhere in the local community.
I stress the importance of one aspect, and that is stability within the quota system, as far as that is possible, bearing in mind the points that my right hon. Friend the Minister made earlier. Obviously, fishermen recognise the need for restraints on their activities to maintain fish stocks. They find it hard to understand the wide fluctuations that take place in their quotas almost from month to month. Additionally, the lateness in the year when provisional quotas are turned into firm quotas causes hardship.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows, as late as September, the 1988 provisional quota for one skipper in my constituency was reduced by nearly 20 per cent., which effectively meant that he had to stop fishing. I sincerely hope that, in future, we can avoid that circumstance.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend is taking such a close interest in fishing activities in Fleetwood and elsewhere. I urge him to continue to fight for simple, understandable regulations based on relatively stable, flexibly enforced quotas.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I am sorry that the Minister is no longer in the Chamber, as the burden of my remarks about the financial state of the fishing industry would leave him under no misapprehension at all. The Parliamentary Secretary will have to act as a substitute for the time being. I, too, detected a note of substantial complacency in the opening speech.
Fishing income depends on four factors: quantities, prices, interest rates and fuel costs. Already, two of those four vital factors are extremely adverse for the industry. I refer to the high level of interest rates and the low level of prices. My constituency has the largest concentration of white fish landings in Europe, never mind the United Kingdom.
I have a bundle of letters addressed to the Prime Minister. For the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary, I shall read extracts from two of them. All constituents' letters are important, but those letters are particularly important because they say something not only about the financial state of the industry but about the character of the industry in Scotland. Our fishing industry is not composed of a small number of people or companies with extremely large boats. The fish-catching industry in Scotland is composed of small family-run businesses, share ownership, and people who work for those businesses.
One letter is from a young skipper's wife in Fraserburgh, who writes:
The industry merits recognition but we feel that it has largely been neglected. What will happen when our men can no longer meet their bank interest payments and the banks start to repossess the boats, which no one will want to buy because they are no longer viable? The N.E."—
of Scotland—
 will be left with a fleet of useless vessels and our livelihood will be gone. I won't go into lengthy personal details, but suffice to say that because my husband is struggling to

maintain his bank interest payments on the boat I am not receiving enough to manage my household accounts etc. The fishing is the only way of life we know and there is little else in Fraserburgh for our men to do. We don't want to be wealthy, all we want is to be able again to manage.
I have another letter from a group of fishermen's wives in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing):
Our husbands are hunters—hunters of vital food supplies to a nation, hunters who must work in dangerous conditions and who must leave the comfort of their homes and the company of their families for long periods with the knowledge now that even 16 days at sea no longer secures even a living wage.
There are many other examples in my correspondence. I shall take the liberty of sending that correspondence to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I refer to small businesses that are already facing extremely adverse economic circumstances in the last six months of this year. They involve people who have invested and modernised and are now facing penal interest rates. We cannot blame the Parliamentary Secretary for the misguided policies that are pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we should have the answer to the questions. What possible benefit can there be for the United Kingdom economy to have interest rates at a level that will bankrupt vital fishing businesses? What possible merit can there be in driving out share-owned fishing businesses?
The focal point of the correspondence that I have received is Icelandic imports. People in the fishing industry strongly believe that such imports are undermining prices in the home market and are coming in at below reference prices. The research that I have been able to do suggests that the central problem is the grading system. Surely it must be looked at by the Parliamentary Secretary. Even in my limited research, I have been able to uncover examples of imported fish presently coming in at under reference prices. Therefore, it is with some surprise that I see no sign of Government action.
According to the Sea Fish Industry Authority's trade bulletin, the latest figures were released in September. That is a scandal. How can the Government possibly monitor developments in fish imports if the latest statistics are two months old? In imports of frozen fish from non-EEC countries there are three categories, one of cod and two of saithe, for which the average price quoted in the bulletin is lower than the reference price.
For example, the average price of other cod is £709 a tonne. The reference price is £869 a tonne. What is the Parliamentary Secretary going to do about this? Why is he not invoking the countervailing measures that are open to him, or going to the Commission to ask for countervailing action against these imports? Even on this dated evidence —there is every reason to believe that things have deteriorated since—imports are undermining the home market.
I take it that the Government realise that, if effective action against non-EEC imports is not taken, as is allowed in the Commission regulations, we face the prospect, with the quotas announced in these documents, of having the home-produced product further compressed, with the price not responding because of the flood of imports from Iceland and elsewhere. That would be the most serious position of all for the fishing industry.
I repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). The Iceland Government and people have every right to conserve their


natural resources as they see fit, but it is for our Government, and other EEC Governments, to monitor and protect against the penetration into the EEC market from Icelandic imports. The Icelandic Government cannot have the bun and the penny. They cannot both secure their own natural resource and demand complete access to EEC markets. What will the Parliamentary Secretary do about the clear evidence that Icelandic imports are undermining the home market and are the cause of the collapse in prices that we have seen over the past three months?
As a means of control of fishery, the TACs are an extremely blunt instrument, as blunt as interest rates as a means of controlling the national economy. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has made a number of strong points to me and other Members, but one of the strongest is that we have enforced the recommended quotas for the past five years for both cod and haddock, and that on only one occasion—and that marginal—have the landings exceeded those quotas, imposed as a result of the original scientific advice given to the Community. Why is it, then, if TACs are an effective way to manage fishing stocks, that we now face a crisis in cod and a disaster in haddock?
To set TACs impossibly low risks the danger of a perverse effect because of the likelihood of increasing the number of discards. The Government will have to re-examine the management of fisheries to see whether TACs by themselves are effectively controlling fishing. Surely the fishing industry has to be controlled by effective management of capacity and the enforcement of protection for the spawning stock. It is not adequate for the Government to say that, just because the last decommissioning scheme was a national scandal, that is a reason not to have another. That is a reason for having a fair and honest decommissioning scheme and not repeating the mistakes of a few years ago.
The main point for Scottish Members in this debate is the dramatic and catastrophic decline suggested for the haddock TAC. I am sure that even the Parliamentary Secretary needs no reminding—if he did need reminding he would have to cope with the lack of a Minister from the Scottish Office to give him that reminder—that haddock is the mainstay of the Scottish fleet. It is the dominant species both by quality and by value. The proposed cut of 62 per cent. will strike at the heart of the Scottish fishing industry.
I have been looking at the Community documents and the documents presented to the House on this subject, because I, too, am interested in the "Hague resolutions" and what practical effect they can have on our difficulties. What is interesting is not just the meeting in The Hague in late October 1976, or the Council resolutions published on 3 November that year, but what was said to the House of Commons in the explanatory memorandum that was presented with these EEC documents.
The Foreign Office was negotiating the rights of Scottish and other United Kingdom fisheries, and it was painting a reassuring picture. The House of Commons was assured that
the need to maintain the level of employment and income in coastal regions which are economically disadvantaged and largely dependent on fishing
was one of the three main thrusts of the embryo common fisheries policy, which was being discussed. It was made clear that the vital needs of fishing communities in Ireland, northern Britain, and Greenland would be protected in the application of the common fisheries policy. It was also made clear that the Commission was thinking of further

assistance to fishing regions, such as money from the European Investment Bank, or from the regional fund or the social fund. That is money that, incidentally, the north-east of Scotland has long been deprived of because of the Government's own regional policy.
It was said that the vital needs of northern Britain would be protected in the application of the common fisheries policy. We want to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary how these vital needs will be protected and whether the "Hague preference" and commitment will be redeemed. What does it mean in practice? Does it mean that the first 60,000 tonnes will be available for northern Britain to fish as part of the haddock quota? What guarantee has the House that that is his aim and intention, and that he intends to secure that 60,000 tonnes when he goes to the negotiations in Brussels? Will he give us a guarantee that, if that 60,000 tonnes is not forthcoming, he will renegotiate what has already been negotiated? As has been pointed out, even 60,000 tonnes would be a disastrously low figure for the Scottish fleet.
It is ironic that, only a few months ago, the Secretary of State was making a speech in Europe on Saturday 7 May, which was headed:
CFP brings stability and prosperity".
The fishing industry in Scotland, and the documents that we are discussing, do not promise stability and prosperity. The talk in the fishing industry in Scotland is of viability and survival. I suggest that the Secretary of State changes not only his speechwriter but the method by which, and the vigour with which, he pursues the defence of Scottish fishing interests in Brussels. I welcome the Minister back to our proceedings. Unless we hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will take positive and fighting action to defend the vital needs of the Scottish fishing industry, we shall have no hesitation in dividing the House on these documents.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It is not my intention to speak on many of the technical issues raised in the debate, which have been dealt with adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and by many other hon. Members representing constituencies all over the United Kingdom. It is appropriate that I speak as a woman representing a fishing constituency, because my hon. Friend read out letters from the wives of many of our skippers and fishermen in Banff and Buchan and Moray. Many of these people are my personal friends, while others are constituents whom I do not know. This much I do know: they are women who are committed to the work that their husbands undertake. They are aware of the dangers and adversity that they face. They are not people who complain. It shows the depths of concern within our communities that the wives of our fishermen are at the stage of writing to the Prime Minister to state their views and to ask for assistance.
The fishing industry is not composed of people who belong to a breed of moaners. The fishermen do not come begging, time after time, for assistance. They are men who work against adversity. They are used to the difficulties of the industry, but the situation is now so critical that positive action to assist our communities is necessary. The fishermen in my constituency have put it to me firmly that they see the situation now as being worse than that which


preceded the famous blockade in the 1970s in the north-east of Scotland. That surely must bring home to the Minister the strength of feeling among our people.
When women write to us, they are conscious of the investment made in the fishing industry by individuals, families and shareholders in our small communities. Boats now cost well into six figures; in some cases, it costs £1 million to buy a new boat. Mention is made of the possibility of tying up some of those boats, but the men cannot afford to tie up their boats because they are staring financial ruin in the face. They have to keep working to pay the interest and to ensure that the boat can continue to go to sea.
Many of the fathers in my constituency are now being asked for advice by their sons who want to follow in the family tradition of owning a boat, going to sea and making their living through the fishing industry. Those fathers are now placed in the impossible position of saying, "I would not advise you at this stage to contemplate coming into the fishing industry" because everything seems to be loaded against them. Prices have plummeted and it is now possible that we shall not have catches that make it worthwhile going to sea. There have been problems with licences and lack of grants for our fishermen. The whole quota situation needs to be reconsidered because of the difficulties experienced. That is the atmosphere in our small fishing communities in the north-east of Scotland and I am sure that it is reflected in other such communities round the coast.
Those communities need people to fight on their behalf. They deserve people arguing on their behalf at the Commission in Brussels. It is not good enough to say that The Hague preference will be put on the table. We want to know what kind of a muscle will be used to ensure that it is implemented. Here I echo the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan that we need a satisfactory response and, if we do not receive one, we shall press the matter to a Division.
We do not want to see the heart torn out of our communities. It is a matter not just of loss of jobs and earnings, but of the heart being torn out of our communities. We need action now and I hope that the Minister will argue most effectively on behalf of those women and fishermen.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): It has been a very good debate this evening and I have listened with interest to every word. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) apologises for being absent, as does the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).
I work closely with my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Where is he?

Mr. Thompson: He is in the other House.

Mr. John Home Robertson: He does not exist.

Mr. Thompson: Let us get on with the debate. It is very important. The noble Lord spends a great deal of time and energy explaining the problems and advantages of

Scotland to my right hon. Friend and myself. I resent the attacks made upon him, but will not take the matter further. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) started with a fierce attack, but I shall not comment on that further as I do not want to stray from the issue.
I wish to say a few words about the great wodge of papers that hon. Members have collected from the Vote Office. The figures are still emerging and Opposition Members have been telling us tonight that we must change the figures in those documents. The Scrutiny Committee has been most generous in its acceptance of the documents at the last minute so that this debate could take place in an orderly and proper manner. The Committee's generosity was also displayed when it referred in one of the documents to the helpful information given by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
That leads me to thank all hon. Members for their understanding of our desire to provide the documents so that they can make relevant and informed speeches, as they have done. That would not have been possible without a great deal of hard work and dedication from my officials and those of the Scottish Office who have brought these documents to our notice very quickly.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to Channel cod and Icelandic fish, as did many other hon. Members. He asked about Greenland cod and whether we would do all we could to catch our total quota. I can assure him that we shall do our best to catch our total quota of Greenland cod this year, although we have not done so every year.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned scientific advice, as did other hon. Members. The scientific advice is the best advice that we have. As many hon. Members have said, the problem is that, in some respects, the advice fluctuates greatly. That does not give us a proper basis upon which to build an industry.
I fully understand the concerns of the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) who read us letters from their constituents. Those people may doubt the wisdom of scientific advice, but that advice, the quotas and the TACs are intended to protect not only the fishermen and their families, but their children's future.
As I have visited various fishing communities throughout the country, I have been impressed by the way in which various fishery committees and fishermen ask for greater conservation measures. I shall continue to visit those communities and, if I am invited by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I shall come to Scotland too. I know that I shall be welcomed when I do. In Scarborough, for example, they are requesting a three-month moratorium on cod fishing. They also suggested an extension of boxes in which people could not fish, so that there could be conservation in the first three months of the year.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister is missing the point about the administration of the fishery by quotas alone. Surely, if he accepts that the scientific advice has by and large been followed over the past five years, that shows that the advice could not have been accurate during that time. The burden of managing the fishery cannot rest on quotas alone. Why do the Government refuse, for example, to introduce a decommissioning scheme?

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman has made his point twice. I shall not say that I was coming to it because I was in the middle of dealing with it, saying that there were other matters that we must consider, such as net sizes. The net size has been increased from 1 January 1988, but many fishermen contend that it has not been increased.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman wanted me to answer his questions, but I shall give way to him.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister appears to be arguing reasonable academic cases that will have to be addressed in the longer term. Everyone understands that, but he appears to have missed the point that there is no time left for some of those fishermen, particularly those fishing for haddock in constituencies such as mine, because they will not survive next year to take advantage of those decommissioning schemes.

Mr. Thompson: I intend to deal with decommissioning schemes and the money that we have spent over the past six years in commissioning and bringing the fleet up to date.
In response to the question by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, I see no possibility at present of a set-aside scheme for fisheries. Quotas have gained the same sort of value in the hands of fishermen as have milk quotas in the hands of farmers. That means that the chance for decommissioning is most precarious. It will be difficult to draw up a sensible decommissioning scheme while, in many parts of the United Kingdom, licences are changing hands at inflated prices.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about the licensing of vessels under 10m and I expected to hear more demands for their licensing. However, as soon as we license them—they seem to catch a small proportion of our fish—we immediately give a value to that licence, which would make it more difficult to introduce a decommissioning scheme.

Dr. Godman: Might it be the case that the measures outlined in the Ministry's consultation paper will ensure only that fishing capacity will stay around its present level? Is it the case that, by the end of 1991, the Government will have to bring about a reduction in the fleet of about 11 per cent.?

Mr. Thompson: It is right to bring about a reduction in the fleet of about 11 per cent. It is right to say that the only countries that are tackling the job at present are Denmark and Portugal. Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 we have given parliamentary time to tackling the job. The register has started today and we have had a favourable initial decision from the Advocate General which gives us hope that the policy will work. The quota-hoppers will then leave the fleet and we shall start to reduce it. We have held consultations and we must find positive ways to reduce capacity.
Before hon. Members become too impatient, I shall deal with The Hague convention. They will be pleased to know that we managed to raise the matter of The Hague convention at the last Council meeting in Belgium. [Interruption.] Let me get three sentences together. We did so under difficult circumstances. I understand the great anxieties of the people who want to fish at the same levels as last year.

Mr. Kirkwood: At viable levels.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman asked for 60,000 tonnes—that is 22,000 tonnes less than last year. That is a viable level. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write that down, I shall read it out.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am intervening in case anybody feels it necessary to alter Hansard's record. There has been a spot of bother about that recently. Is the Minister talking about The Hague preference or The Hague convention? The two are very different.

Mr. Thompson: I am talking about The Hague preference. I shall fight for The Hague preference. We started to fight for it at the last Council meeting. I fully understand the importance that hon. Members give to the preference.

Mr. Salmond: What does the Minister mean by fighting for The Hague preference? Is he telling the House that he will accept nothing less than 60,000 tonnes of haddock and will he invoke The Hague preference to achieve that? If not, what will he do?

Mr. Thompson: I shall not tell the House how I intend to proceed. If I tell the House, I tell the Germans, Dutch, Danes, French and Italians how I intend to proceed. I have given hon. Members the assurances that they were seeking on this matter.

Mr. Wallace: I am not asking the Minister how he will go about the negotiations. I seek an assurance that at least 60,000 tonnes of haddock will be made available and that that will be the bottom line.

Mr. Thompson: I cannot give an absolute assurance.

Mr. Wallace: What is the status of the preference then?

Mr. Thompson: I shall argue about the status of the preference. The Hague preference must be argued about.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister understand that there is confusion among our sister European nations about our position? Haddock is an essential national resource in terms of the common fisheries policy for Scotland and the United Kingdom. We do not seem to be fighting our corner. If we did fight for a TAC for haddock, we should get support for that. From the Minister's tone this evening, I have the impression that he has no stomach for a fight.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his insinuations. I realise the value of the haddock stock and our European colleagues realise its value to us. We need a balance on all stocks throughout the United Kingdom. It has taken a year's hard negotiation to maintain the 4 deg west provision. I know of the difference between last year's quota and this year's.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister speculate on how the fisheries Minister of an independent Scottish Government might treat The Hague preference and the Scottish fishing industry's vital need for haddock? Would such a person treat it as a vital matter, or with the Minister's casual attitude?

Mr. Thompson: That is a hypothetical question.

Dr. Godman: This is a serious question. I must have an assurance on the supply of fish from Iceland and The


Hague preference. The Minister must assure the House that the Icelanders will not be able to exploit a reduction in the domestic catch of cod.

Mr. Thompson: I reiterate that the question put by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was a hypothetical question.
The United Kingdom delegation, with my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office sitting next to me, will fight as hard as anybody for Scottish rights. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow gave the House some figures about Icelandic cod. There are various technical difficulties about the figures and they must be seen over a period of time. If he sends me them, I shall look at them carefully.
We have no evidence to date that imports from Iceland were below the levels. It will be difficult to negotiate with the Icelanders about fish because their livelihood depends wholly on it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 37.

Division No. 5]
[7 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Gorst, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gow, Ian


Amess, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Amos, Alan
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Arbuthnot, James
Gregory, Conal


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Ground, Patrick


Atkins, Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Atkinson, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hanley, Jeremy


Batiste, Spencer
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harris, David


Benyon, W.
Haselhurst, Alan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hayward, Robert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hind, Kenneth


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cash, William
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irving, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Janman, Tim


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Durant, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Tony
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael





Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Mans, Keith
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speller, Tony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Needham, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thorne, Neil


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patnick, Irvine
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Michael
Wheeler, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Raffan, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Redwood, John
Wilkinson, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Commission's amended proposals on total allowable catches and quotas for 1989 described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 30th November 1988, European Community Document No. 9312/88 on total allowable catches and quotas for 1989, the Commission proposal on the 1989 Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement with Norway described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 23rd November 1988, the Commission proposal on mesh sizes described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 30th November 1988, European Community Document No. 9185/88 on fishery guide prices and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1989 consistent with the requirements of conservation of stocks.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be depositied with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Peter Shore: We are discussing what I think is called a revival motion. It is an effort to revive in this Session discussion of a Bill on which we have had a Second Reading debate in a previous Session. If the motion is passed, a badly designed Bill, which is damaging to the interests of the people of Spitalfields, will head towards the statute book. This is a good moment to halt its otherwise inevitable progress.
I hope that, at the end of the debate, my right hon. and hon. Friends will support me in the Division Lobby and oppose the Bill's revival. The Bill received a Second Reading on Thursday 12 May, after which it was sent to a Committee of the House, which had 10 substantial sittings. In Committee, the petitioners who had petitioned against the Bill were called and gave evidence. They put their case for not proceeding with the Bill.
I have read all of the Committee proceedings and have no complaint against the Committee. It conducted its hearings with admirable fairness and thoroughness. The Committee was sufficiently impressed by the evidence that it heard to require substantial amendments to be made to the section 52 agreement concluded by the City of London corporation and Tower Hamlets council as a condition of its approval of the Bill. I thank the Committee for that and congratulate the petitioners, especially those who spoke for the campaign to save Spitalfields from the developers, on putting the case of the bulk of residents of Spitalfields so persuasively and tenaciously.
Alas, the Committee could not respond to the petitioners' central point, which was that the Bill should not be proceeded with. The Committee could not respond to that request because the House had already given the Bill a Second Reading.
It falls to the House today to take up the issue again and, I hope, to decide not to proceed with the Bill. I am sure that the people of Spitalfields would be glad if the House decided not to proceed with the Bill, which is narrowly drawn. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), acting for the City of London, summed up the Bill on Second Reading. He said:
I shall briefly explain the purposes of the Bill. It is to relocate the present market in Tower Hamlets to a fresh site in the London borough of Waltham Forest … It is to adapt

and to amend many of the local enactments that are applicable to Spitalfields so that they apply to the market on its new site … to make no significant changes to market regulation law. It is also to require the corporation to offer accommodation in the relocated market to traders at Spitalfields market and at Stratford market, which is about one and a half miles from the relocation site."—[Official Report, 12 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 521.]
On the face of it, the Bill is concerned only with the relocation of Spitalfields market. That raises such issues as market planning in London and the problems of traffic congestion. Almost any substantial market site has such problems.
I do not dismiss the important arguments about market planning and traffic congestion, but by far the most important issue—and that with which the Bill does not obviously deal, but which it is in fact all about—is what will happen to the 11 acres of prime land covered by the present market which sits cheek by jowl with the City.
If the Bill were designed simply to transfer the market to a new site, I do not think that the motion would he before the House today. One quite remarkable feature of the report of the City of London corporation of 22 October 1987 on the future of Spitalfields market is the assertion that there is
no overriding reason to relocate the market … despite these factors"—
that is, heavy traffic congestion—
the market is relatively successful and it has to be said that not all the problems are insurmountable: e.g. with the co-operation of the local authority (Tower Hamlets) and the Metropolitan Police much could be done to alleviate rubbish dumping and traffic congestion respectively. More space could be found in the area for vehicle parking and the Corporation could consider taking control of the surrounding streets in order to regulate the whole trading area.
There is no question of an over-riding case for transferring Spitalfields market. No such case was argued by the City of London, and none would stand up if anybody tried to sustain it. We have the Bill because of the 11 acres of land that are so near to the City of London.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to be rigid or to restrict the scope of debate unduly, but we are not discussing the content of the Bill, merely the motion on the Order Paper. The right hon. Gentleman should get back to the motion.

Mr. Shore: I shall try to do that, but whether the Bill should be revived and whether it should be proceeded with is closely linked. I find it difficult to imagine a closer link.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was the right hon. Gentleman who reminded the House that the Bill had been given a Second Reading.

Mr. Shore: Indeed. The Question now before the House is whether the Bill should be revived and allowed to proceed. I am simply arguing the case and shall not do so at great length. It seems to be an appropriate moment to arrest the course of the Bill.
There is no overwhelming reason why, in relation to the operation of the market, the site should be moved. The strong reason given for moving it is related entirely to the value of the 12-acre site and what is to be done with it. The City of London and the Spitalfields development group presented Tower Hamlets council with a major plan for office redevelopment in the area. There were some other facilities but is was basically for offices. They had chosen to do that in an area which is, on all the indices of poverty,


deprivation and overcrowding, whether governmental or local governmental, the most deprived ward, not only in Tower Hamlets but in London. That ward has more problems—especially those related to homelessness, miserable and wretched overcrowding in housing and unemployment—than any other ward in London.
Is it justifiable to go ahead with a Bill which blocks off the land from the residents of Spitalfields in order to bring about yet another substantial office development in the area? It is not that the borough of Tower Hamlets is rich in land—it is not. At one time it looked as though we had found a solution to most of our problems when the London dockland area became vacant as ships moved down the Thames. However, as the House knows when the London Docklands Development Corporation was set up, the land was transferred to it and, therefore, was not available to the borough of Tower Hamlets for its pressing and urgent housing problem. The issue has raised the question of how we should go about inner city development. Nobody is arguing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to the motion before the House.

Mr. Shore: All right. However, it relates to it and, even if I did not raise the matter, it would be on the minds of those concerned about it.
I wish to put to the House a matter that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may think is more closely related to the motion. The original plans—which were part of the deal behind the Bill and which the Spitalfields development group submitted to and negotiated with the City of London corporation and Tower Hamlets council— contained some proposals, including the development of some major offices.
In the Estates Times, on 28 October, we read:
A complete re-design of the redevelopment proposals for Spitalfields Market in Tower Hamlets could include the City's first major shopping centre.
Apparently the group is now considering a revamp of the plan to enable the group to develop a 250,000 to 300,000 sq ft shopping centre in the proposed development. This will be a major challenge to other shopping developments in the Whitechapel area and it puts an entirely new complexion on what is being proposed.
That change of plan has not been discussed in Committee, nor has it been reported to the House. Nobody is to blame for that because it became public only in the last few weeks. However, it is an important consideration.
The House has good reasons for not proceeding with the Bill and for sympathising with the plight and needs of the people of Spitalfields. It has good reasons for deciding that the Bill should be dropped and allowing the promoters—in the ample time that they will have—to sort out the proposals and, if they wish, to return with new proposals that are far better designed to serve the needs of the area.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: A number of concessions were made in Committee and people in the local community welcome the extra money for community gain and the covenant ensuring that two pieces of land, Elder gardens and Horner square, will remain open spaces.

However, they are dismayed that no concession was made about Allyn gardens which is the largest park in Spitalfields, which is a heavily populated area with insufficient open space. The local people believe Allyn gardens will be developed by Tower Hamlets council.
The Committee Chairman said that he recognised the impact that the development will have on the community. If the Bill is allowed to proceed, it will indeed have a massive impact. The monetary concessions that have been made will not compensate for the devastation that will take place.
In addition, Holland estate, which is nearby, is to be taken over by a housing action trust unless the tenants are allowed to vote against it. That means that the whole area will be heavily developed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to the article in the Estates Times from which it seems that important changes will be made. There will have to be substantial amendments to the plans because the demand for office space is falling and the amount of office space will be surplus to requirements. The article says that about a quarter of the space will be used for a shopping mall and that the new plan is that the shopping centre will have 300,000 sq ft and that the design will be based on the
Galeria in the centre of Milan.
The local authority already has a plan for a big shopping centre in Whitechapel, which is not far away. That plan would be destroyed and that shopping centre would no longer be viable if the Bill is allowed to proceed.
The plans are confused and the Bill should be returned and rethought. There are also plans for Whitechapel library, which is near the site. It is to be closed down and a compulsory purchase order will be imposed on the land behind it. That will be used for even more office space.
If the Bill is allowed to proceed there will be office space development gone mad. There will be two types of enterprise culture opposing each other. The Government purport to support small-scale firms in Spitalfields but they will be opposed by international high finance, with computer screens linking the City of London to the money markets of the world. That will change the nature of the area. The lives and livelihood of thousands of people, as well as the nature of the community and character of the area, are under threat. The Bill should not be allowed to proceed when there is such confusion and it seems that there will have to be a major change of plan.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 23.

Division No. 5]
[7 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Gorst, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gow, Ian


Amess, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Amos, Alan
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Arbuthnot, James
Gregory, Conal


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Ground, Patrick


Atkins, Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Atkinson, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hanley, Jeremy


Batiste, Spencer
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harris, David


Benyon, W.
Haselhurst, Alan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hayward, Robert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hind, Kenneth


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cash, William
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irving, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Janman, Tim


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Durant, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Tony
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael





Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Mans, Keith
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speller, Tony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Needham, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thorne, Neil


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patnick, Irvine
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Michael
Wheeler, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Raffan, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Redwood, John
Wilkinson, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Michael Fallon.




NOES


Allen, Graham
Howells, Geraint


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bermingham, Gerald
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Salmond, Alex


Darling, Alistair
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dewar, Donald
Sillars, Jim


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Spearing, Nigel


Galloway, George
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


George, Bruce
Vaz, Keith


Godman, Dr Norman A.



Gordon, Mildred
Tellers for the Noes:


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mr. James Wallace and


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Home Robertson, John

Division No. 6]
[7.29 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Cash, William


Amos, Alan
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arbuthnot, James
Cohen, Harry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Benyon, W.
Fallon, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Browne, John (Winchester)
French, Douglas






Fry, Peter
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Roger


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Needham, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Page, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Powell, William (Corby)


Harris, David
Raffan, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Redwood, John


Hayes, Jerry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hind, Kenneth
Shersby, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sims, Roger


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Irvine, Michael
Stern, Michael


Irving, Charles
Stevens, Lewis


Jack, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Janman, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lawrence, Ivan
Wheeler, John


Lightbown, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Lilley, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wood, Timothy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael



Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mans, Keith
Mr. Neil Thorne and


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Mr. James Couchman.


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)





NOES


Bermingham, Gerald
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Corbett, Robin
Salmond, Alex


Darling, Alistair
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dobson, Frank
Sillars, Jim


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Snape, Peter


George, Bruce
Soley, Clive


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Gordon, Mildred
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Macdonald, Calum A.
Mr. Bob Cryer and


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Graham Allen.


Pike, Peter L.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;

Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall he ordered to be read a second time;

Ordered,
That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited in the last Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;

Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,


That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.— [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Summer Time

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7876/88, on Summer Time arrangements; and supports the continuation of the existing arrangements for a further three years to enable the Government to consult and give careful consideration to future summer time arrangements.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I assume that the motion has been moved and that because no hon. Member has risen to speak, and if I had not risen, there would have been no debate? I am not quite sure about the procedure at this stage. Perhaps you can enlighten us because I believe that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) wants to speak. I am not sure whether he can move his amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I apologise to the House. I have proposed the Question rather than put it. I have not thwarted anyone's hopes of participating in a debate. I should have told the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and his hon. Friends. If the hon. Member for Southend, East is trying to catch my eye, I will call him.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move, to leave out from first 'arrangements' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'but regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to accept that the Directive falls under Article 100A; and urges Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the issues raised by the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses and the opinion of Mr. Speaker's Counsel as expressed in Annex B to the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation of this House before engaging in further discussions on the Directive.
I apologise for the fact that I am moving the amendment rather than one of my hon. Friends because, unfortunately, we have the impression nowadays, sadly, that European matters of significance are debated only very late at night. I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this can be a bit embarrassing. I am sure that we should all be aware that Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker always maintain their very good general relations with hon. Members despite our very late hours.
Basically we are debating a simple issue of principle which affects everyone in our country. Over the years summer time has caused major debates and disagreements in the House. It relates to human safety, the lives of children and adults and we all know that if we get the date wrong, that could result in a serious loss of life. To that extent the House has torn itself apart. I remember delegations from the north of Scotland and the north-east of England pleading with the House to move in a certain direction. We know, for example, that if we make summer time in a certain way, children in the north tend to go to school in the dark. Sadly those issues have dominated the House and caused enormous controversy.
We are worried because the European Community has put forward a directive, the object of which is basically to try to ensure that the decision on summer time will be made not by the United Kingdom Parliament but by the majority vote of the Council of Ministers.


I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), is here because he is one of the most conscientious attenders in the House. I am sure that he will be aware from our many previous discussions that, sadly, there is a whole range of issues on which the House does not make its own decisions and about which the European Community takes a decision by a majority vote. It is very sad that the average person in Britain is probably not fully aware that laws are being passed by the majority vote of the Council of Ministers and Parliament must simply abide by them.
That is only one part of a whole scene of shifting responsibility from national Parliaments to the EEC. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed concern about that in her recent important speech in Bruges.
Sovereignty is slipping away in three ways. First, there has been a huge increase in the powers of the European Court of Justice. Only recently the Government were instructed by the European Court of Justice to levy VAT on hearing aids, spectacles and new commercial and industrial buildings. That is one sign of sovereignty going away.
Secondly, sovereignty has been slipping away through the powers used by the Commission. The Commission is simply the EEC's civil servants, but it has been taking more and more power. We have seen that recently in the ban imposed on the import of all apples into the EEC without consulting excellent Ministers like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for their opinions.
Probably the most dangerous and worrying transfer of sovereignty has been through the Single European Act which, sadly. Parliament discussed on a guillotine very late on a Thursday night continuing through to Friday. As a result of that, decisions may be made in certain areas on laws to apply to all member states by a majority vote.
At the time, the Government said that they would be very careful to ensure that only those laws requiring majority vote were actually transferred. That is why the excellent Select Committee on European Legislation has looked carefully at the way in which the Commission is seeking to extend article 100A which means extending majority voting to issues which should not normally go that way. For the first time in my experience as an hon. Member for many years, I was fascinated to see in the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation the actual guidance from Mr. Speaker's counsel who stated specifically and categorically that the summer time order should not fall under article 100A. If it had stayed under article 100A, we would still have the right to say no if we did not like it.
We know that under this proposal the EEC is allowing the United Kingdom— [Interruption.] I am delighted that a Scottish Member has arrived in the Chamber. The Scottish people feel very strongly about this issue. They passionately believe that Scottish lives are threatened. Not only has the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) arrived on the Scottish Nationalist Benches, but as always —and we take this for granted—my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is present. He is protecting Scottish interests and looking after the interests of his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North should be an example to all hon. Members, with the conscientious attention that he pays to the debates in this House.
The Commission and the Council of Ministers have

agreed that the United Kingdom can have three years during which it can basically go its own way on summer time. If we want to have a different date to end summer time, we can go our own way. Many of us are worried that because that is being done under article 100A, after the three years the EEC, by majority, can state what summer time will apply in Britain. Even if we did not like that, even if 650 hon. Members said that it was rubbish and put lives in danger, the new date would apply because of article 100A.
I appreciate that summer time is a very controversial issue which will divide hon. Members. I know that hon. Members from Scotland have very strong feelings because they know that their constituents feel desperately strongly about the dangers to children if we get summer time wrong. The papers presented to us from the EEC acknowledge that many lives could be put at risk if we get summer time wrong.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department promised in our last debate on this matter to look very carefully at the issue of the use of article 100A. I am now worried because it appears that the Government accept that article 100A is appropriate. How can anyone say that this issue involves freedom of trade or the internal market? Surely the fixing of summer time is a question for the Parliaments of each member state. Whether one is an enthusiast of the Common Market or a critic of it, there must be some issues on which national Parliaments must make up their own minds. I accept that some people would say that it would be more convenient if everyone in Europe had the same time. Of course it would, in the same way as that argument applies in the United States where there are wide variations in time. Even so, that does not upset the internal market.
Why on earth do the Government agree to article 100A? If they agree to it, do they not accept that there is a whole range of issues on which we can simply move to majority voting? We heard Mr. Jacques Delors say in Brussels recently that the time would come when 80 per cent. of our laws would be made in Brussels by majority vote. Mr. Delors was wrong. That time has come and that is obvious from the flood of Euro measures. We have considered three this week. If hon. Members took their jobs terribly seriously—as all hon. Members do—and studied this weekend the mass of papers for the debate on Monday night, they would be horrified to see what is proposed.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The hon. Gentleman will realise that many years ago we said that if we decided to join the Common Market this kind of thing would happen. Slowly but surely our rights are being taken away. We shall soon be told when we can get up and when we can go to bed. We are being told exactly what to do. Slowly but surely, the decisions that we have to make for the people of this nation are being taken away from us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a debate on summer time, not bed time.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many people feel that. However, in fairness I should say that all the sovereign rights that have gone—the hon. Gentleman and I have been in the same Lobbies in opposing them—have


been approved by the House of Commons. We must ask ourselves tonight whether more sovereignty is going than Parliament has agreed to.
In the Single European Act and in our own legislation we have defined what was included under article 100A. That is not just the view of some strange nut speaking from the Back Benches; that was the crucial issue raised by the Scrutiny Committees of the House of Commons and the other place where wise people look at such matters with great care. They said that on this matter article 100A did not appear to be appropriate. We have the expert advice of Mr. Speaker's counsel that article 100A should not apply. Anybody who studies such matters would also say that article 100A was not appropriate.
What worries me is that if this measure goes through we have no idea what the Council of Ministers will do in three, four or five years' time. What we do know is that the right to decide summer time has gone from the House of Commons and will be decided by the majority vote of the Council of Ministers.
That is even more worrying when we realise what is involved. It is not just a matter of whether we have an extra hour's sleep; we are talking about real-life issues—the convenience of industry, the lives of children and what happens on our roads.
Some may say that that is silly and that the Common Market will always do the sensible thing. However, some take the view that it does not always do what is sensible, and I am among that number. But whether we think that or not, the crucial point is that Parliament is passing the power to decide to a group of Ministers. It would not be so bad if those Ministers considered every issue on its merits, but we all know from previous experience that if, for example, we want Holland's support on an agricultural matter and Holland wants our support on issues affecting health and safety, people say, "We will support you on this if you support us on that." That is an unsatisfactory form of democracy, but we cannot discuss that tonight because that decision was taken by Parliament a long time ago.
In view of what was said when we last discussed this matter, and in view of the importance of the issue to people throughout Britain, are the Government willing to say that article 100A does not apply? If not, will they say why? If we agree to this, oher matters can be similarly decided upon.
The Government have said that we shall have a new thinking period of three years in which to decide which way we want to go. There are several options. We all know them. The crucial one is whether to stop summer time in September or October. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of this because those views have been expressed by hon. Members in Parliament time and again. The crucial issue is why we should allow an issue such as this to be decided by a majority vote of the Council of Ministers, about which we can do nothing.
We have seen time and again recently that, irrespective of the views of the Government and Members of Parliament, if the Council of Ministers decides something by a majority, that is that and we have to implement it. Only a few weeks ago we had to pass an order abolishing origin marking. The right of people to know where something is made has gone, not because the Government wanted that, but because the Commission said that it was

wrong to discriminate between European goods. The Government took legal advice and were told that they should accept that ruling.
I appreciate that the battle over the loss of sovereignty was, to some degree, decided when we passed the Single European Act. I opposed it, but the majority voted for it and that is settled. What worries me is that we are adding a crucial matter to what has already gone and that is tragic. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to think carefully about the amendments and about standing firm on this occasion. Even if they lose the battle—we appreciate that the change will be difficult to get through the Council—at least the British people will know that the Government are speaking up for Britain and for Parliament.
Hon Members on both sides of the House were greatly heartened by what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Bruges. However, words are one thing, actions are another. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister on this occasion to stand up for parliamentary sovereignty and the rights of our people, and stand up against the threat to the lives of our children. Try to make sure that on this occasion we say that this matter should be decided by the United Kingdom Parliament, not by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I shall take only a couple of minutes, but it is regrettable that I should have to take even that time. The summer time issue should have been settled when we last rejected the experiment in the early 1970s. My predecessor in the House made his maiden speech in that debate and it is regrettable that we should still be discussing the same old issues.
My main objection is to the option to change winter time to British summer time and to have summer time plus one hour. That experiment was tried in the early 1970s and it failed. It was hugely unpopular in the north of Scotland, particularly in my constituency, where discontent was such that there was a grassroots movement to go on to our own time zone which we were also to call BST—British Stornaway time. I am sure that if the Government take up this option seriously, we shall see the same grassroots movement against it.
I draw the Minister's attention to the recent survey by the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland as recently as the early summer of this year, in which it asked its various affiliated organisations their preferences on the various options being canvassed by the Government for the alteration of summer time. Of the 28 organisations that replied, 19 said that they preferred the status quo; only two wanted British summer time during the winter. Those organisations that wish to retain the status quo had their bases in Scotland and their members in some way or other made most of their living off the land, whether through fanning, forestry or even tourism. The two organisations which wanted a change were the Ramblers Association and the Royal Automobile Club Motoring Services, both of which have their headquarters in London. That is instructive.
The notion that the change suggested in the Government's list of options has anything to do with the need to develop a single market is preposterous. It is as preposterous as the notion that we must have a uniform sales tax across the EEC. The example of the United States


shows that it functions perfectly well with differential sales taxes in different states. Several different time zones also operate across that continent. There is no reason why we cannot do the same, even in the context of a united states of Europe and a movement towards greater European unification in respect of other matters.
The application of a central European time from the most northern part of Europe down to the Mediterranean will not make any sense. At this early opportunity, I record my constituents' opposition, which is shared, I am sure, by most of the north of Scotland.

8 pm

Mr. Bill Walker: I support the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), because there is no question—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this on board—that the view in Scotland is almost totally unanimous. I say "almost" because one usually finds that organisations that do not support the Scottish view have their roots and origins in London. Scottish-based organisations, and certainly my own constituents, have posed more questions to me on this subject than they have on the community charge, which gives an indication of their depth of feeling.
Summer time has been an issue for many years, and whenever there have been proposals for experimentation, Scotland has wanted the status quo to continue. I hope that, during the three-year respite, the Government will have second thoughts about the way in which they deal with the directive and accept that it does not come under article 100A but is something on which they should take a stand.
It is not the great issues that mostly affect people's attitudes but the small matters that impinge on their everyday lives. A change in British summer time will doubtless have an enormous impact on everyday life. The hon. Member for Western Isles, using the United States as an example, argued that it is nonsense to claim that such a change is necessary to make the market more efficient.
That certainly is the most nonsensical argument anyone can produce. The finest markets operate worldwide. The Japanese would not work any more effectively and efficiently if they observed a different time zone. They operate under a very different time zone from ours, yet they manage to penetrate our markets successfully. It is ridiculous to suggest that a change in summer time will help the market place. It is instead an administrative notion, from bureaucrats who like everything nice and tidy and who want us all to be the same. It is time people realised that Scotland likes to be different. We enjoy being different, and we want to be different. There are good reasons why we are different, and those differences will be impinged upon by a change of the kind proposed.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The House will note the exceptional Scottish interest there is in this matter. That is not surprising when one remembers that Scotland was the place of the previous British summer time experiment, which was far from relished. The strength of feeling now being expressed results from that earlier experiment, which caused major problems for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out that his predecessor, the right hon. Donald Stewart, used his maiden speech to emphasise his

opposition to British standard time. Scotland's geography has not changed, and the arguments used then still hold true.
In the British Isles, the sun rises on a line roughly south-west to north-east. In the middle of December, it is 10.15 am before Scots begin to see a blink of daylight. That is why there were demands for the abolition of British standard time from a host of sources, including the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, worried about the consequences for the building industry; the National Farmers Union, whose members faced special problems rising from the adoption of British standard time; the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers; the Union of Post Office Workers; the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers Association, and others. Opposition was clearly expressed by a whole range of Scottish organisations. I am certain that if they were asked again, they would express a similar view.
Scotland's geographic realities mean that uniformity with more southerly European states will create major problems in rural areas for farmers, the construction industry and others. Scotland's lower temperatures will combine with the penalties imposed by extra hours of darkness to increase industry's costs and its energy and light requirements. It will place an extra stress on the population. I ask the Government to note the problems that women and children in rural areas will face if they are forced to walk great distances in darkness. The earlier objections to the proposals stand, but today we live in a very different society, posing even greater dangers to the individual.
I want to get over to the Government the message that Scotland would face many problems if such a change is made. It is not beyond the wit of humankind to take into account the geographic realities of Scotland's northern areas and to act accordingly. The Soviet Union and the United States have different time zones, and it should not be beyond the wit of the Community to devise a solution that will suit its members. The last experiment showed that a change will bring major problems for Scotland. There was desperate opposition to it, and nothing has changed since then. I hope that the Government, in all their dealings in this matter, will take account of Scotland's plea and the nature of the problems that a return to British standard time would create for it.
If the Government question whether there really is such opposition they have only to ask, for I am sure that they will receive exactly the same message. Scotland requires a time structure that suits its special needs, not one that is imposed for external reasons.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I cannot be as brief or as wide ranging as some right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for the reason that has already been given by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor): I am Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, whose two lengthy reports on the subject I draw to the attention of the House.
I wish to address points of legal and constitutional significance. Important though the considerations are to which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have referred, ultimately it will be for its constitutional and legal aspects that this case will be remembered. Unfortunately, the proceedings of the House mean that the Minister did


not open this debate. I suppose that that is the responsibility of those of us who did not take the opportunity to permit him to do so by drawing to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the method that would make that possible. I regret to say that, but for a point of order, this matter could have gone through on the nod. However, the Minister will have one go and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) also has one go.
I want to clear the ground, and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. We are discussing a number of points relating to summer time, but we are really discussing the EEC's fifth directive. As I understand it, if voluntary agreement is not reached by 1993 the consequence will be that we shall be dictated to not only as to GMT plus two, and when that finishes or changes, but also in respect of the voluntary arrangement for its start, and that those decisions will be made for us by the Council of Ministers by majority vote. Important though that is to all right hon. and hon. Members, it is a striking example of the way in which decisions—including the time at which we shall go to bed—are being made for our country by majority vote of the Council of Ministers. Meanwhile, the Government are arranging a survey. When the Minister replies, no doubt he will tell the House something of the results which —surprise, surprise—might mean the Government presenting proposals fitting in with those of our European partners across the Channel. In that case there would be no need for that vote. I rather suspect that such an arrangement may emerge, although I do not wish to be too cynical. I am trying to clear the ground. As I have said, we are discussing the fifth directive, which the Select Committee considered of sufficient legal and political importance to be debated in the House.
I must now revert to important and detailed constitutional matters which may be difficult to describe and even more difficult to understand. But the example that I shall give may reveal not only to the British public but to hon. Members the extent to which majority voting will replace our own legislation, not just on summer time but in a sphere as yet undefined.
I believe, as I said in a speech the other day, that when the House passed the Single European Act and authorised the insertion in the treaty of Rome of article 100A, no one—including myself—understood the implication. If anyone did, we were not told. Certainly no one told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I was then a Member, and no Minister mentioned the implication with which I shall deal tonight. Either they did not know or they were concealing it from the House. I am one of those with a charitable turn of mind who believes that they did not know.
I am not suggesting that the Minister will venture tonight into those lofty areas of politics and constitution, although as a lawyer he will probably understand their importance. It was because he understood such matters that, when they were raised in a debate on 28 April by the hon. Member for Southend, East and myself, he doubted whether the use of article 100A would be appropriate. That, at least, was my interpretation of what he said. Since then we have corresponded with the Home Secretary. I should like to quote some of that rather lengthy correspondence in a moment, as it is very significant.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand my stance at the last debate, and I am sure that he did not intend to do so. I chose my words very carefully. What I said was:
I do not propose to express a concluded view on the issue, if only because I do not think that I am competent to do so.
I went on to say:
I am not irrevocably persuaded that article 100A applies to the directive. Clearly, that matter requires further consideration. I most certainly do not concede that the directive is intra vires article 100A."—[Official Report, 28 April 1988; c. 617.]

Mr. Spearing: I wholeheartedly concur, and I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I think that I referred to "doubt", and it is fair to say that there was doubt across the Floor of the House about the suitability of the article in relation to summer time.
I must now go into the details of the written constitution under which the House now operates, which will, I am afraid, take some time. Article 8A of the treaty of Rome, on which article 100A hangs, states:
The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.
To that extent it defines the internal market. Article 100A, to which it gave life, is much longer, but the important paragraph for our purposes reads thus:
The Council shall … in co-operation with the European Parliament and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulations or adminstrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.
The important word there is "functioning". Any law or regulation in a member state that impinges on the functioning, or non-functioning, of the internal market comes within the ambit of article 100A, or would at least appear to. I should mention that article 100A is subject to majority voting, whereas article 100—the original article in the treaty—speaks of
the establishment and functioning of the common market.
That article was subject to unanimity. There is, of course, a difference between the functioning of the Common Market and that of the internal market, and they are governed by slightly different articles.
Mr. Speaker's counsel drew the attention of the Select Committee in Report HC43 No. 15 to the use of article 100A in respect of what was then the fourth directive, which, as I have said, we discussed on 28 April. Mr. Speaker's counsel, who advises Mr. Speaker on legal matters, told the Committee—and we thought it important enough to note his advice in annex B—that the Government, who are responsible to the House, should not have been content with the choice of article 100A for the directive in question. In being so content—as I shall illustrate by quoting from a letter from the Home Secretary—they are making the directive subject to majority voting; if it had remained under article 100 it would have been subject to unanimity.
It is an important choice for any Government to have to make. The Council of Ministers can, if it wishes, challenge the basis of a regulation chosen by the Commission. The Commission is much more powerful than some hon. Members who have made speeches recently: it alone can produce draft laws and regulations. Any one of the 600-odd hon. Members in the House can


present private Members' Bills, but the Prime Minister herself cannot put a draft proposal before the Council of Ministers.
The Commission is the eye of the needle. Moreover, it not only puts forward the law but cites the article of the treaty of Rome—which is our written constitution—on which it is based. If it is based on an article that requires unanimity, that gives every nation a veto. On the other hand, if article 100A is cited, a qualified majority of 23 votes is required to stop or block it. The United Kingdom and West Germany have only 10 each. Even two major states are not sufficient on their own to block a proposal under article 100A.
Hon. Members may say that it all sounds a bit legal and complicated so far, but so what? If article 100A is chosen for the summer time directive there may be a few chunterings from a few hon. Members, but what does it matter? It matters very much, because if the Commission is able to cite article 100A for this directive, what will they not be able to cite it for? We are not talking just about the length of daylight, the number of hours in GMT plus or minus or the date on which it should finish. Strange though it may seem in an unexpectedly early debate in an almost empty Chamber, we are really talking about the powers of the EEC to pre-empt the legislative authority of the House.
I have said on radio and in speeches that we do not know the perimeters to that power. I do not think that the Government know, either. I certainly do not think that the Home Office knows.
The Select Committee has embarked on a study of the choice of treaty base after the Single European Act comes into force. We have taken evidence—in HC 178—iv and v —from Government spokesmen, including evidence from Home Office spokesmen. The report is not yet complete and I do not intend to quote from it, but the witnesses appeared to be somewhat at variance with one another. We are still conducting that inquiry, so I shall not pursue the matter. It is still, as it were, sub judice. However, the Home Office spokesmen gave evidence as to why the Home Office thinks that article 100A is suitable in this instance. We are to take evidence from other witnesses before we publish our report.
In the meantime, the Government are steaming on and using that article, despite the fact that in the original report on the matter—HC 43-xv—we questioned its use. After the debate on 28 April to which the Minister referred I wrote to the Home Secretary and asked him why, in the fifth directive—the one with which we are dealing—the Government accepted article 100A in their explanatory memorandum and why they also accepted it in the Council of Ministers. I also asked the Home Secretary to explain why, after the doubts that had been expressed on various occasions about the use of article 100A, the Government went ahead with it.
In our next report that was published last week—HC 43 xxxviii—we published the correspondence that I have had with the Home Secretary on the topic. I shall read to the House the last part of our report so as to put the matter into context. On page 6 we say:
The Committee's concern about this point arises from the inference to be drawn from the arguments used by the Home Office, namely that, if any perceived internal market element found recourse to Article 100A, only political considerations restrict the scope of Community action under this Article in areas not specifically excluded. The Legal Adviser points out that this could have implications for national competence

and, more significantly, draw the outline of a massive area in which Member States' freedom of action may be inhibited pending Community action. Furthermore, acceptance of this approach in one case may have implications for the Government's position regarding other proposals. The Committee therefore intends to pursue this question in the context of its current studies on choice of Treaty base.
The Committee demonstrates above that this proposal raises important legal questions. It considers that important political questions are also raised and recommends further consideration by the House on the occasion of a debate on Summer Time Arrangements.
That is this debate.
I revert to the original note of Mr. Speaker's counsel and to the reasons why he doubts whether this regulation ought to come under article 100A. The point is fairly clear.
Summer time does not affect the physical movement of goods or the movement of telephonic communications. The establishment of the internal market depends upon the breaking down of physical and legal barriers. We have to ask what physical or legal barriers are impeded by different time zone arrangements. I put it to the House that there is little evidence of that. "Ah," say those in favour, "yes, there is. Business men, speaking from one side of the Channel to the other, or from one time zone to another, are inconvenienced by different time zones. Therefore," say those who are in favour of using article 100A, "there are commercial and market elements that justify the use of 100A." They say that it is justified, even if the British people believe that matters such as agriculture and daylight are important, apart from the importance of this House deciding for itself what should be done. It is a constitutional issue.
Whether one consideration justifies the use of article 100A over all other considerations is a moot point. We debated that matter on 28 April. After that debate there was the Home Office's decision and the fifth directive. The Home Office said that it was content that article 100A should be used, but it did not tell the House at that time. We found out by looking at the explanatory memorandum, where we saw that article 100A had been accepted and that the Home Office had not objected to its inclusion. Therefore, we shall have to accept a majority decision in due course.
I want to take the House one stage further. If the Home Office believes that that is acceptable, which other Government Departments will accept article 100A when only elements of commerce or the market are involved instead of commerce and the market being absolutely overwhelming or dominant?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The matter is even more serious than that. According to the Home Secretary's letter, which is published in the report, he does not argue that it comes within article 100A. He states simply that he finds it difficult to argue that it does not fall within article 100A and that even if it did he would not win the case before the Council of Ministers. As the Government are allowing it to go through—not because they agree with it but because they think that it might be difficult to prove that they do not agree with it—does that not mean that a much wider scope of legislation will be passed from this Parliament to Brussels?

Mr. Spearing: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He takes me in this arcane but fundamentally important area to my next point. The correspondence that


I have had with the Home Secretary—published in our latest report, HC43-xxxviii—reproduces in length what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The Home Secretary said:
To understand how the Fifth Directive would contribute to the establishment and functioning of the internal market, it has to be read alongside earlier Directives in the series, especially the First Directive of 2 July 1980/737/EEC, the recitals of which clearly indicate that the objective pursued is to facilitate transport and telecommunications between Member States.
As I have just demonstrated, transport is not impeded by a time zone boundary. A ship or an aeroplane does not stop at a boundary for an hour or so, or even for a day, and then proceed on its journey. All that it does is to change the time. Similarly, there is no impedance, other than electrical, in the electric current of the airwaves or those of the telephone. There is no immediate interruption or pause, as there is at a boundary.
The Home Secretary went on to say that the presidency had been helpful in delaying matters to allow time for the Select Committee to look at the matter and to allow the debate to take place, but the Home Secretary does not dissent from the belief that this regulation is well founded on article 100A, whereas the Committee believes that it is not.
I hope to persuade the House—whatever we do about this particular regulation—that the Home Secretary is wrong and the Government are wrong and had they gone to the EEC Court they would have had a very good argument. If we look at countries which cover a very wide latitude and constitute a single internal market, whether or not it is regulated—particularly the United States of America, the USSR or other countries divided by fewer commercial or political boundaries—it is clear that physical requirements require them to have a time zone because of the latitude that they occupy. However, nobody would suggest that that impedes the claimed economic effectiveness of a single internal market.
How can the existence of time zones intrinsically affect the internal market? It may be that people are inconvenienced socially. It may mean that a man in Paris or a man in London may find it less convenient to telephone at a particular time, but no doubt he would find it inconvenient to telephone Madrid at lunchtime, even if they were in the same time zone. That is a social inconvenience which has nothing to do with time zones or statutes. It is a matter of social habit.
In conclusion, the Government have not, in the view of the Select Committee, made a good case for article 100A. In fact, they have made no case at all. If they have been content to allow article 100A to go through on this matter, when in our view there was an excellent case to resist it, why and on what basis are they accepting article 100A on many other issues in the Cockfield package, and no doubt in the years ahead, without saying, "No, we object to that. It must come under another article where the Government's powers will be stronger and we are not likely to be outvoted by the Council of Ministers."
That is the nub issue. Is it that the Government have not woken up to the fact that the choice of treaty base is fundamental to determine whether the House or the Council of Ministers decides? If they have not woken up to that, they had better do so pretty quickly. If they have, why did they let article 100A through on summer time when we believe that the case was minimal? There must be

an answer to that, and the answer bears fundamentally on the constitution of this nation, on the freedom of its subjects and on the power of the House to decide on laws in the United Kingdom. The debate has arisen, as it were, by accident at an unexpected time, but I believe that the issues are fundamental ones with which we have been attempting to grapple. I do not believe that the Government have understood them, and they certainly have not grappled with them inside the Council of Ministers. If they had, we would not be debating the issue here tonight.

Mr. Alistair Darling: This has been an important debate and, ironically, it has been quite short, given the two important matters which it raises. The extremely important question of summer time causes a great deal of concern, especially in Scotland and in the north and west of Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) have touched upon those points. The debate also raises a very important constitutional issue for the United Kingdom which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have raised. It is ironic that the proponents have changed, that those who support the measure are not here tonight and it looks as if the Minister is on his own. I wonder whether the Government are using this measure, which is uncontentious in certain parts of the country, as a bridgehead and as an experiment to see the reaction of the House to the use of article 100A. It is setting a precedent which worries many of us.
The proposal illustrates the perils of centralisation. I believe that we are being pushed towards accepting what is best for the centre of Europe after 1993, rather than having regard to the needs and wishes of all parts of the United Kingdom.
The Commission at least has accepted that there is a problem and that the case for change is not proved. We have a breathing space of some three years to debate the matter further and to decide what to do. The directive proposes no change for three further years, and to that extent we are certainly not opposed to it.
Before examining the merits or otherwise of summer time, may I say that a preliminary point has been raised at some length by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. The directive is made under article 100A, which is directed towards measures which have as their objective the establishment and functioning of a single market. However, the article seems to be a catch-all, rather like a breach of the peace in criminal law. If one cannot get someone under something specific, one can go for breach of the peace. The idea that a common time system is part of the scope of the single market, and an essential part of it, seems a very broad interpretation and lends weight to the belief that this measure is being used as a bridgehead to try something out.
The 38th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, dated 2 November, states:
The Committee continues to doubt the general appropriateness of Article 100A as the Treaty base for Summer Time Directives. Whilst it notes the arguments advanced that the objective pursued is to facilitate transport and telecommunications between Member States, it finds it difficult to accept that time differences per se either constitute


an impediment to such services or to free movement or constitute 'internal frontiers'. If this contention is accepted, it is consequently difficult to see how such proposals can 'have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market', the test for recourse to Article 100A as a Treaty base.
Of course, that is absolutely right. It is difficult to see why article 100A has been relied upon by the Government except that it provides a bridgehead and means that it is extremely difficult for us to go against the Commission were it to decide against us.
I remind the House that article 4 of the directive clearly states:
The Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt by I January 1992 the arrangements to apply from 1993 onwards.
That means that, no matter what may be the wishes of the House, no matter what the Government may care about it, the Commission can do what it likes. The Commission is in Brussels, and I believe that, in common with the ideas in this country being dictated from a certain corner of the United Kingdom, what comes from the EEC is often conditioned by the way things are seen from Brussels rather than from anywhere else. We must have some regard to that and it should be a matter of some concern and I hoped that more hon. Members would have paid attention to it. If article 100A is to be used in such a broad manner, it has significant implications for the sovereignty of this Parliament.
I was not here when the Single European Act and other European measures were debated, but I wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members appreciated what they were doing, and in particular the impact of article 100A. As the hon. Member for Angus, East spoke in the debate, I must stress that there is a clear indication of how preposterous is the notion of Scotland within Europe. If we are subject to article 100A under which majority voting decides, the very idea of a country with three votes having any great influence is utterly preposterous. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Angus, East will tell his chums when he sees them later that what they are proposing is preposterous and does not stand up.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I must point out the alliance between the Conservative party and the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman is echoing the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland when he was rudely dismissive of Denmark, Greece and other nations in Europe. What is important is that Scotland has a direct voice, unlike the present situation in which we are represented by delegates of delegates. It is important that Scotland is in Europe in its own right, and the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that.

Mr. Darling: The short answer is that if Scotland was an independent country it would have only three votes and would still be subject to the majority wish. If the majority was against Scotland, it could do nothing about it. Now that we are in the EEC and have subjected ourselves to article 100A—there is no reason to believe that all member states will not be subjected to it—we are surrendering much of our sovereignty to that body.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in terms of entry into Europe and influence in making decisions, many Scots have been represented in both Conservative and Labour Governments? When a Labour Government are in office, it will contain many Scots.

Mr. Darling: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman welcoming the idea of a Labour Government with so many Scots in it.
Article 100A has been discussed at some length. I hope that the Minister will reply to the points that have been made and that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter again.
One's view of British summer time or double summer time depends on whether one lives north and west of a line running from Devon to Teesside—a new variation of the north-south divide. There are two options for change: first, to adopt the continental end date of September. I see no advantage in that. The longer nights will start one month early. It will hit tourism, prove difficult for industry, add to costs and affect the safety of children who live north of the line running between Devon and Teesside. Some of us still think of September as summer. The only justification for adopting a common end date in September must be the blinkered view that everything should be the same throughout Europe. If there must be a change, the end date should be in October.
The second option needs more attention because I suspect that that is the one towards which the Government are trying to edge us. That is to have British summer time in winter and double summer time in summer. It sounds good, but on closer examination I wonder whether it is. In December, from south-west Ireland to Berwick, the sun would not rise until 9.35 am and would set at about 5 pm. In Oban, the sun would rise at about 9.55 am and in Lerwick it would not rise until after 10 am and would set at 4 pm. In the south-east of England, the sun would rise at about 9.10 am and set at about 5 pm.
Many people would be travelling to work or going to school and returning in darkness in the north and west of the United Kingdom. That worries many people and the Government will have to consider it seriously. It is not good enough to say, "It will be fine for the majority of the country who live in the south and east. Never mind the rest." It is important to recognise the serious risks to people travelling to work in the morning, and especially children travelling to school, on roads that are still covered in ice.
It is not as though our later mornings will be compensated for by longer evenings in the winter. For much of the winter, the sun will set at 5 pm or 6 pm, which means that children and people coming home from work will do so in darkness, or at least when the light is fading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles said, people were badly hit by the change in his constituency. No wonder that an attempt was made to establish Stornoway time instead of the time to which the rest of the United Kingdom was operating.
I am sceptical about the benefits for leisure and safety. The case for safety has certainly not been proved and much more work must be done. The idea that in the winter we shall all be outside playing games and enjoying leisure activities is preposterous. No matter what one does with the time, we can do nothing about the British weather. For much of the year, especially in winter and sometimes in summer, it is not especially pleasant to be outdoors in the evenings.
Lest some may say that I have taken an example in December, when the evenings are darker anyway, let us consider the position in February. West of a line between Penzance and Edinburgh, the sun will not rise until after 8.20 am, so the position will not be that much better.
It is worth examining the arguments deployed in favour of double summer time, although we have heard none tonight. That emphasises again that the result will not be longer hours of daylight in the evening. We are told that there would be a reduction in the number of fatalities in road accidents, and that the increase in accidents in the morning will be more than offset by the likely reduction in the latter part of the day. That is no comfort to someone who may be injured in the morning. The Government should consider the experiments conducted in Sweden, which have found mornings to be the peak time for injuries and fatalities in road accidents. The fact that most people live in the south and east of England, where the mornings are lighter, twists the statistics for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Another argument is that there will be a small reduction in the number of burglaries and other criminal offences. That is wishful thinking.
The Government and those in Brussels argue that the change would create a substantial improvement in all aspects of trade and travel. But their argument does not stand up. If a British business man wishes to telephone his counterpart in France or Germany, it is not too difficult for him to arrange matters so that he telephones at a time when that person is at his desk. The United States struggles by with five time zones, yet no one has said that its economic performance has been adversely affected. The USSR manages to struggle by with 11 time zones.
It is nonsense to suggest that we should have the same time across Europe. We are encouraged not to use our telephones before 1 pm, and most people are used to arranging their affairs so that they speak when they know that people are there. It is a mere excuse for tinkering with the present system. What about the British business men who want to speak to people in Japan or to do business on the New York stock exchange? Should we have a world time?
The argument about harmonisation is flawed. There is no problem in having a Europe with great differences, whether they are cultural, political or based on time. No one is crying out for a change, so why do it? It is ironic that a Conservative Government, who are supposed to be about conserving things, want to change the present system. Even in July in Greece it gets dark at about 7 pm —that is one of the nice things about it. No one suggests that the Greeks should change their system to get longer evenings, even if that were possible.
The case for change has not been made. There are strong arguments that must be considered, and I hope that the Minister will tell us who has been consulted and the progress of his review. Most of the people to whom I have spoken on both sides of the House believe that the review is being carried out in a less than open manner. To whom is the Minister speaking, and in which areas of the country? Will he bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles that organisations that function in Scotland and are based in London may not be the best ones to consult? I want an open period of consultation during which everyone in the United Kingdom can make his views known. Many people are unaware that this measure is being discussed tonight. Many hon. Members are unaware of the debate. The Government will have to give more publicity to the fact

that a change is contemplated. For many people, especially those living in Scotland and in the north and west of England, the changes will have a great impact.
I hope that the Minister will deal with the basis on which the directive was made under article 100A. What happened when Ministers discussed the matter in Brussels? The exercise seems to be shrouded in secrecy. Of course, that is a characteristic of the Government. Little that they do is open, especially when they do not want us to know about it.
The Minister has a duty to tell the House what fight was put up and to give a categorical assurance that, before any other directive on summer time comes forward, the House will have an opportunity to debate at length the premise on which the matter comes forward, based as it is on article 100A, and the merits of summer time. If he gives such assurances, we shall certainly not divide the House. If he does not do so, he can rest assured that the matter will come back again and again, because of its serious implications for the way in which people live and for the constitutional issues that it raises.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I begin with an apology—an apology that I owe to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I regret to say that I came into the Chamber a trifle late. Although I heard, I think, 95 per cent. of his speech, I missed the opening few sentences. I profoundly apologise to him. I hope that he will accept that I intended no discourtesy.
The House will accept that my hon. Friend set the tone of the debate. The points that he made have been echoed by several hon. Members, and they need to be addressed today and subsequently. My hon. Friend began by stressing the importance of the matter we are debating, and, in particular, focused on the choice of article 100A as the treaty base of the directive. The House has heard his arguments, and I shall seek to deal with them shortly.
My hon. Friend's arguments were supported by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is concerned about the choice of article 100A as the appropriate treaty base. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East understandably drew attention to the concern of the peoples of Scotland and England, and in that particular he was powerfully supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). The people of Scotland's concern about this matter is serious, and we clearly must address it before we come to final conclusions.
I hope to explain why the Government have decided to take the action that we are now taking, and I hope that I will be able to reassure several hon. Members. But, before I address the particular points that I intend to address, it would be helpful if I were to spell out the nature of the directive and its consequences.
The proposal does not require that we make any change to our arrangements for summer time during the lifetime of the directive. It provides that the status quo shall continue for a further three years. Moreover, and because we are carrying out a review of our summer time arrangements, the directive enables us, if we so choose, to


depart from the status quo and harmonise our dates with other member states during the lifetime of the directive. But again I stress that the choice is ours.
The directive provides that, for a further period of three years, 1990, 1991 and 1992, the existing arrangements for starting and ending dates of summer time will continue throughout the Community. Thus, as now, summer will start throughout the Community on the last Sunday of March, but, in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, it will end on the last Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October. In other member states, it will end on the last Sunday in September.
Continuation of the status quo in that way means that we are out of phase with other members states in two respects. First, we end summer time one month later than others, except the Irish Republic. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central has made observations about that matter with which I have considerable sympathy. Secondly, the effect is to place us in a different time zone from continental member states. We are, with the Irish Republic and Portugal, one hour behind central European countries.
The European Commission and other member states have never pressed us to change in that respect, but, because the Government have detected a widespread feeling in this country that more summer time might be beneficial to us, we have commissioned a review in which one option would be to move into the central European time zone. That would give us more summer time and, at the same time, enable us to harmonise time with the Community throughout the year. But that is an idea—we could properly describe it as an option—which the United Kingdom Government have brought forward. It is not an idea—it is not an option—which the Commission has either proposed or advocated. However, if adopted, it would enable us to meet the Commission's objectives of all states finishing summer time together if we left October as it now is.

Mr. Spearing: It might be right to clear up a point that I made, from which the Minister has not dissented. Whatever may happen between now and 1992, is it not a fact that, if we do not voluntarily harmonise in the way in which the Minister is suggesting may or not be possible subsequent to that date, by use, if it were chosen, of article 100A, we would be subject to the majority decision on the matter, as I outlined at the beginning of my speech? Is not the cessation of the regulation at the end of 1992 just as much an important feature of the proposal as any other?

Mr. Hogg: I can entirely understand why the hon. Gentleman raised that point. It is a bit premature to speculate on what might or could happen at that time. Clearly, several possibilities exist. One possibility is that, of our own volition, we might decide to move to central European time, in which case we would consider primary legislation. Another possibility—I stress that these are only possibilities, to meet a question from the hon. Gentleman —is that we might consider the possibility of moving the end date forward one month. That would require secondary legislation in this place.
We might—it is another possibility—decide to maintain the status quo. In that event, we would, it is true, require a directive to achieve that objective, but we might

very well achieve it by persuasion. I would be surprised if we were unable to persuade member states to adopt a view which, in the end, we would wish to put forward.
There is a range of possibilities. As yet, the Government have come to no firm conclusion. The nature of the possibility that emerges at the end depends upon constitutional consequences. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I cannot go down the road that he pointed me to, but I hope that I have given a fair indication of the kind of options that the House will have to consider after the expiration of the directive.

Mr. Darling: The Minister talked about the various options that the Government are considering, and the various options that might come forward. Can he tell us a little more about who is being consulted and what the nature and scope of the review is, or is it something that Ministers are discussing among themselves? Our concern is that all parts of the country are not being consulted and therefore have good cause to be concerned.

Mr. Hogg: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. I was going to come to it shortly, but this is as convenient a time to mention it as any other.
It is our intention to publish a consultation paper within the next few months, which will include the options that I mentioned in reply to the question from the hon. Member for Newham, South. We will publish the consultation document, which will open the discussion wide and will involve anybody, and I hope everybody, who has a view that they wish to express. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked me to give an assurance that there will be a wide discussion. There will be a wide discussion on the basis of the consultation paper and the Government will once again display their skill in their desire to ensure open debate on matters of major importance.
The treaty base underlying this directive is, I believe, the concern that has motivated hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. There have been other questions, but article 100A has been very much to the fore of the debate. It might be useful to remind ourselves that the first three directives were introduced under article 100, and, as the House knows, article 100 provides for unanimous decisions. The fourth directive and the present draft directive have been brought forward under article 100A which, as hon. Members have rightly pointed out, calls for and provides for a qualified majority.
As I have always believed in the power of persuasion, and I made my living from it for some time, I am not so pessimistic about these things as some hon. Members appear to be. It is worth reminding the House that the object of article 100A, as the hon. Member for Newham, South rightly pointed out, is to deal with measures that have as their object the establishment and function of the internal market. That is the phraseology that the House is bound to have in mind when we consider the appropriate treaty base.
Inevitably, the present draft directive and the fourth directive have to be read in the context of the first and second directives. Hon. Members will, I know, have studied this, particularly the hon. Member for Newham, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. They will know from their study of the first and second directives that in the preamble express reference is


made to the objective of facilitating transport and communication. That is the background against which we have to focus our considerations.
We have to ask ourselves whether we can sensibly say of this draft directive, or indeed the fourth directive, that it has an objective different from that which was the objective of the first and second directives, which we accepted. The House will, I think, accept that when one poses that question, one has to conclude that the objective of the present draft is the same—it must be the same—as the stated objective of the first and second directives and consequently what we are debating today is a draft directive that has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the facilitating of transport and communication.
When I wound up the debate on the Summer Time Order 1988 on 28 April 1988, I said—I have made this point before—that I was not "irrevocably persuaded" that article 100A was appropriate to the directive. However, I also said that the matter needed "further consideration". I shall be candid, as I have always tried to be candid with the House. I was not then willing to make a concession as to the vires of article 100A. I had formed clear preliminary views, but I wanted to test those views once again before I made a concession, which I recognise is a concession that is likely to bind us, certainly with future directives of this kind, and perhaps with other directives. Therefore, I was extremely cautious because I did not want to make a concession from which I might feel that I subsequently had to resile.
We have done what I said that we would do. We have considered carefully the vires of article 100A, and whether or not this directive falls within it. Our careful, considered view is that the directive falls within the scope of article 100A. If we were to win and assert the contrary, as the hon. Member for Newham, South and my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North and for Southend, East want us to do, we would have to be able to say that the purpose of the directive was outside the scope of article 100A. We would have to prove that it was ultra vires. That means to say that we would have to establish that it was not a measure for the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulations or administrative action in member states which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.
I do not believe that we could prove that article 100A was ultra vires partly because, in our judgment, it is intra vires, partly because, as a matter of evidence, we are stuck with the preambles to the first and second directives, and partly because, when we come to consider the consultation document, the House is likely to find that the views recorded in that document are to the effect that the present system of time is a constraint on travel and telecommunications. That will be a recording of other people's views and not necessarily, at that stage, the considered view of the Government.

Mr. Darling: Is the Minister already anticipating that, as a result of the review that we have not yet had, the majority of people will argue for the change that I suspect he wants? Surely, when we are considering the vires of this directive, it is for those who are promoting it to prove that it falls within the vires. I cannot see how the directive

facilitates communication or transport, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. So far as I can see, it makes no difference.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is not focusing precisely on the question. The consultation document is only a consultation document. It is designed to open the debate as wide as possible, but it likely that a substantial number of views will be recorded in the consultation document to the effect that the present time systems are a constraint. I know that, because I have a broad idea what the likely terms of the consultation document will be.
This is yet another evidential problem in our way because, when there is a recording of views to the effect that the present time system is a constraint and we accept, as we must do, that the first and second directives have as their objective in the preamble the facilitating of communication and travel, we have great difficulty in arguing that this directive is outside the scope of article 100A. If we have to challenge that, we have to prove that it is ultra vires. The business of any Government is to form a view. The view that we have formed is that the appropriate treaty base is article 100A. That is not to say that it would be ultra vires article 100. It may be within article 100, but it is not ultra vires article 100A.

Mr. Bill Walker: As a non-lawyer, I sometimes find it difficult to follow what is ultra vires and what is intra vires, but does my hon. Friend accept that a change in the time system, so that we have a longer period of darkness in the morning in Scotland, will mean that we have more black ice on the roads? That is the greatest constraint of all on travel and transport. We have to face that every winter and, if we have one more hour of darkness, I can assure my hon. Friend that that constraint will be visible and noticeable.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North puts his case with considerable force. However, he would be well advised, before he rests on that argument, to consider in detail the views of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and to consider the documents that were available on British standard time in the early 1970s. The one point that was plain—which was mentioned in the last debate—was that British standard time resulted in a saving of lives and a reduction in injuries overall. It follows a fortiori that if British standard time had that effect, changing to central European time would have an even more pronounced effect.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister will probably agree with me on one point. Now that we are under a written constitution, the choice of articles and their interpretation are major legal matters. In justifying his choice of article 100A by earlier use of article 100, is the Minister suggesting that the two are conterminous? If they are conterminous, why is there a need of article 100A for derogation? That shows clearly that, in theory at least, there is some difference between the two articles, otherwise there would be no need for the A.
The Home Secretary sent me a letter dated today in which he said:
In our survey of summer time, we have received evidence, particularly from organisations dealing with Europe, that the present arrangements, and in particular different ending dates for summer time, impede transport and telecommunications.
That is the nub of the Government's case. Does the Minister agree that the present arrangements do not


physically impede transport and telecommunications, because they cannot? They are an inconvenience and may be a social inconvenience. Habits may be an inconvenience between countries in the same time zone. However, impedance does not mean physical obstruction.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is fixated with the phrase "physical obstruction". The words he should use are "constraint" or "fetter" and constraints or fetters can take a number of forms. I have no doubt that in certain circumstances a difference in time zones which makes communication difficult or makes travel more complicated is a constraint or fetter that is capable of interferring with the proper performance of the internal market.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the letter he received from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which makes my point that there is evidence. Evidence will be appearing in the consultation document and that will make it extremely difficult, once that evidence is recorded as a fact. to contest the vires of article 100A.
In making his second point, the hon. Gentleman was being less subtle than he is normally. Words such as "conterminous" are splendid, but they do not add up to much. But this point does add up: the preambles to the first and second directives state the specific objective clearly—the facilitation of communications and travel. That concept brings us four square within article 100A and this is within its scope.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister accept that his words about what he expects will be in the consultative document have sent a chill through the Opposition and Conservative Members with a knowledge of Scottish constituencies? I shall return to my constituency and tell people to prepare for a Government directive—on which the Minister has already made up his mind—that will attempt to foist central European time on the people of Scotland. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will not impose central European time against the majority will of the people of Scotland? I hope that the Minister will take the votes of Scottish Members as an indication of that majority will.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman does both me an injustice—although I do not suppose that he cares about that—and his constituents, because he intends to deceive them about the position. I made it wholly plain. I said that we were about to publish a consultation document which would set out the options. They include doing nothing, which is maintaining the status quo, bringing the end date of summer time one month forward or going into the central European time zone. The Goverment have come to no conclusion. We are putting out the options so that people can express their views and Parliament and other

scan form a clearer opinion as a result. If the hon. Gentleman speaks to his constituents as he has just spoken to the House, he will be deceiving them which I hope he will not do.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I have given way sufficiently often and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is getting cross, which I have always found a compelling reason for sitting down. On that happy and conclusive note, I commend the Government motion to the House and ask the House not to accept the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: With the leave of the House, I shall be brief.
We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his usual courtesy in establishing the position. It is frightening constitutionally and means that the Government are saying that it must be article 100A if we cannot prove that it is not. That opens up a huge range. Secondly, they are saying that it is article 100A although the directive makes no changes and establishes the status quo. The Minister has been honest enough to tell us what the score is.
This is an important night for the constitution and I hope that every hon. Member, following the lead given by the Select Committee, will realise the dangerous constitutional issue that we now face and the whole series of legislation which is now sadly being transferred from here to Brussels. I hope that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) will not warn his constituents about what a Conservative, Labour or Liberal Government may do, but will tell them that, sadly, in three years' time, irrespective of what transpires, the decision on what happens to them will be made by the Council of Ministers by majority vote. That is the real issue tonight and it is a worrying one.
Again I thank the Minister for being so clear. My five colleagues who signed the amendment are coming to the House at 10 o'clock for the debate and it would be discourteous to them to force this to a Division in their absence, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7876/88, on Summer Time arrangements; and supports the continuation of the existing arrangements for a further three years to enable the Government to consult and give careful consideration to future summer time arrangements.

Roads (Northern Ireland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Seamus Mallon: As I have heard that the Minister to reply to this debate is cross, I may temper some of my remarks because it will be twice in two consecutive weeks that I shall see him cross and I do not want that.
I welcome the opportunity to draw attention to a matter which is dangerous in a Northern Ireland context —as it would be in any other context—and that is the results of what is known as the Snaith report in relation to the abandonment of some rural roads in the north of Ireland. First, I should put the term Snaith in context. Those who have an abiding passion for the turf will remember the days when there was a jockey of that name, who never rode from the front, always won his races from behind and was never seen by the other jockeys until the post, when they were pipped. This one seems to be akin to the jockey. He seemed to come from nowhere, produce a report that nobody knew anything about, cause mayhem among the rural community and evaporate into thin air.
This is a dangerous report because it recommends to people in rural areas that some roads which they have used for generations will be closed because someone came from England, had a look and decided that farmers and people living there did not particularly need them. Perhaps I put the case cynically, but that is how it is viewed by those affected.
Several of my constituents were surprised, to put it mildly—shocked would not be an overstatement—when they got word from the roads executive that the road on which their house was built or adjacent to their land was being abandoned and that—believe it or not—they had a right of objection, although no one told them what would happen if that objection was received.
Somebody who replied to a parliamentary question about the Snaith report on behalf of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that it was to investigate the implications of adopting a positive abandonment policy in respect of low trafficked rural roads. Like many other people, I have great difficulty envisaging what a positive abandonment policy might be. It seems a remarkable contradiction in terms. It seems that a great deal of brain power has been used to arrive at such a definition of something as simple as abandoning roads and refusing to maintain them.
The idea of abandonment is bad for the simple reason that the North of Ireland is a rural country. Our biggest industry is farming. Most people who are employed—not that many are employed, of course—are employed in farming, and rural areas have always been the most stable part of the North of Ireland.
Among civil servants and others who advise Ministers in the North of Ireland, there has always been tension between spending on urban areas and pushing people into towns and keeping the rural infrastructure maintained.
Those of us who have lived to see the debacle of the creation of the new city of Craigavon, or rather the attempt to create a new city of Craigavon—a Milton Keynes in the middle of Northern Ireland—realise how silly and expensive it is and how counterproductive it is in

human terms. Among all the economic and security problems and the problems of division, the rural community is one of the real stabilising factors.
I am glad that the Minister is here, as he is one of the people in the Northern Ireland Office who has realised the importance of what I and many others are saying. I should like to take this opportunity to thank him for taking a courageous decision about people in a very disadvantaged area of my constituency. They did not have a mains water supply. He made the sort of courageous decision that is required. Guidelines laid down by the Department are only that. They are designed to guide; they are not absolute. I ask the Minister to have a good close look at the Snaith report. If there is anything of advantage in it, that should be discussed. Above all else, he should discuss the issues.
I have here a copy of a letter which Armagh district council sent to the divisional roads manager in the Craigavon area. The divisional roads manager is assiduous in helping people and replying to queries, but he is in difficulty—he does not understand the Snaith report either, or he does not understand its context. The letter is dated 10 November. A reminder was sent by the clerk on 28 November, but there has not yet been a reply. I do not blame the divisional roads manager for that.
The letter asks three questions, the first of which is whether the traditional arrangements will be adhered to, and whether, if the district council receives objections to an abandonment, the proposal will simply stop. Secondly, is Armagh district council area being used as a pilot scheme? Thirdly, why were there no discussions with district councils and public representatives about something which was seriously to affect the lives of people, especially at a time when the whole thrust of EC directives is towards helping those in disadvantaged areas? I have no doubt that, following this debate, a reply will be received by Armagh district council. Will the Minister address his mind to those three specific points because they are the kernel of the matter and will be crucial for us all?
I was shocked when I received the figures for the road closures as of 31 October 1988. I want to compare like with like and shall use the figures for areas which are as rural as Armagh. I found out that one road was closed in Down district council area, two in Limavady, two in Omagh, three in Fermanagh, two in Dungannon, one in Ballymena and 23 in Armagh district council area. That seems to be more than a coincidence.
For that reason, people on Armagh district council—as I am—the clerk of the council, myself as Member of Parliament and all those affected are asking what we have done to deserve the attention of Mr. Snaith. I know that we are guilty of many sins of commission and omission, but I do not know of any that would merit this type of comparison with other district council areas. Will the Minister make some observations about that?
The matter does not stop at abandoning a road. It concerns people's livelihoods. As we know, farming nowadays is not a matter of driving a horse and cart up a lane. It is a mechanised industry, with combine harvesters. When the milk is collected, great tankers have to use the roads and if a road is abandoned it deteriorates quickly. What do farmers do then?
They are also being denied the provision of street lighting because of what I regard as a most remarkable anomaly in the administration of the North of Ireland. I want to take this opportunity to point the matter out to the


Minister. If I am wrong, I know that the Minister will correct me and, if I am right, I ask him to correct the policy.
A large proportion of the budget for street lighting in the North of Ireland goes towards lighting in privately developed housing estates, where a builder will make huge amounts of money from building and selling houses. He must lay down the roads and sewers at his own expense and provide the electricity, but the Department of the Environment puts in street lighting for him. I find that remarkable. I do not see any circumstances that justify that continuing. If people are building a development from which they will make a profit—as is their right—let them provide all the amenities and let them pay for providing the street lighting. That is reasonable. If it is not done, the very people to whom I am referring—those who live in isolated areas—who need lighting more than anyone else, will not receive it. One of the reasons why they are not receiving lighting now is the iniquitous policy I have mentioned.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that many of us have been pushing for an integrated rural policy for the North of Ireland. Such a policy has been formulated by the EEC and proposals have been set out. We must try to implement an integrated policy so that we can talk about the lives of those who live in isolated areas, not merely about roads, street lighting, infrastructure, water, sewerage or whatever. We must never lose the integrity of rural life in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I can assure the hon. Member for Newry and Amagh (Mr. Mallon) that I was cross only on his behalf. I realised that, having been in his place since 8 o'clock, mainly because I sent out messages to find him, he might have been looking forward to his dinner. After the kind words that he used towards me, I can say with even more force that I am certainly not cross.
In 1986, my Department, following many criticisms that it had received and following the many problems that it had faced, appointed Professor Snaith—he is not a snake in the grass in Newry and Armagh but an eminent consultant on transport matters and an authority on highway engineering—to examine road conditions in Northern Ireland and all aspects of the Department's road maintenance policy.
We have decided, for good and sensible reasons, to keep confidential some of the findings which he brought to our attention, but most of his suggestions which involved improvements to engineering practice my Department is implementing. Professor Snaith recommended that we should develop a system that would give priority to the most important routes in an economic sense, the roads which would have A and B classification, and achieve the best value for money. I have accepted his advice, and we shall give priority to the most heavily trafficked roads. These are the major inter-town routes and the accesses to the ports. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that that does not imply that other roads will be neglected. Professor Snaith suggested that the Department should take a hard look at the entire road network. We have

14,500 miles of public roads in Northern Ireland, which, per head of population, results in the highest ratio for any comparable area in the United Kingdom.
We have the puzzling and bureaucratic phrase "policy for abandonment", which I let slip through the net instead of using my usual, fairly simple English. The issue is that we should concentrate on improving the maintenance of the existing road network and investigate the possibility of abandoning roads which have exceptionally low usage. I use the more elegant phrase that was adopted by the hon. Gentleman, which I am sure would be used by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who I am pleased to see in the Chamber. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of these roads are in sparsely populated areas.
I would hate to accuse the hon. Member for Newry and Amagh of gilding the lily in any way. To test the practical implications of giving up responsibility for these roads —perhaps that is a better term than "abandoning" —the Department decided to undertake a pilot study. It was decided that the study should take place in a country district, and the district selected was the one with the greatest concentration of roads that have exceptionally low usage. Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, the district happened to be in the area which he represents. It was for that reason only that the study took place in the Craigavon division of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. My officials did not go round threatening abandonment. They tried to find out what people actually thought about the proposals. Many of the roads do not have peopie living in them. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman said, they lead to farm buildings that are in use and that is why the pilot study was undertaken.
The results of the local consultations clearly showed that even the lightly trafficked roads serve a distinct need. Following the findings, I decided that the limited savings which might be forthcoming did not justify any change in our present policy. I hope that that will considerably reassure the hon. Gentleman. His constituents need not worry, as any proposal to abandon such a road would require consultation and general agreement. My Department has no intention of adopting a programme of withdrawal from the public road network in any part of Northern Ireland. Of course there will be some circumstances where it is perfectly sensible to give up a piece of road—for example, when a loop is taken out following some kind of realignment.
In the hon. Gentleman's constituency over the past five years nearly £5 million has been spent on major road works and a further £8·5 million worth of schemes are planned for the constituency in the current five-year programme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that represents a very large investment in the Newry area and underlines my determination to ensure that there is an improvement in the quality of life of all its citizens through the road network that we shall support and maintain.
We spend about £750,000 each year on minor works in Armagh and Newry and Mourne district council areas. That is fully comparable to any other constituency in the Province. In addition, we spend approximately £5·5 million each year on maintaining the roads, street lighting and car parks in the Armagh and Newry and Mourne districts. Of course I will bear in mind the important points that the hon. Gentleman made about street lighting. I thought that he perhaps slightly undermined his case when


he reminded the House about horses and carts and the fact that farmers have tractors and harvesters. Horses and carts did not often have headlights, while tractors and harvesters do. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we are talking about a balance between people living in urban areas and those living in the countryside. It is not very nice for kids to have to walk up dark lanes in the winter.
I hope that I have succeeded in allaying any doubts that the hon. Gentleman may have had about my determination to maintain to the highest standard the splendid asset of Northern Ireland's road network. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is also aware that we announced yesterday substantial additions to the funds that we shall spend—following Professor Snaith's report for which I give him credit—on the maintenance of roads in the Province over the next three years. Most of that money will be used for the upkeep of the main roads, but other parts

of the network will obviously benefit as well. I am sure that we would all regard that as a sensible investment and a token of my Department's commitment to maintaining the efficient road system in Northern Ireland.
Of course I am happy to make available to the hon. Gentleman a summary of the principal recommendations by Professor Snaith and together with that tell him the action that my Department is taking to implement those recommendations. I will do that now.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman about the position for his constituents. He is always meticulous in raising with me any matters that affect his constituents and I will always do my best in those circumstances to assist him and them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me at this late stage in the evening, considering the possibility of our dinners, if I do not consider integrated policy but leave that for another day.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Ten o'clock.